Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | wak | 32870 | ||
Well, if the TNIV makes a dent in the ALL pervasive image of God has a wise old man with a white beard, then it's all for the good | ||||||
2 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 32884 | ||
wak, which translation do you have in mind that depicts God as a "wise old man with a white beard"? Or did you derive your "ALL pervasive image" from some other source? And, pray tell, what could the TNIV possibly do to make a dent in THAT? Aren't you, in fact, setting up a straw man while evading the real issues of the forthcoming TNIV that are under consideration in this thread? Frankly, what is your point? --Hank | ||||||
3 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | wak | 32891 | ||
I'm sorry, I wasn' talking tranlations, but reality (Is that allowed?). I would guess that 99 percent of Christians (including me) ,at some level, see God has the classic wise, white, old man. We assign God a race and a gender. Is my guess far off? Is my reality wrong,based on anyone else's interaction with Christians? Maybe it's just the circle of Christians I run with. If the Bible Society,with the TNIV, is taking a step in challenging that illusion... then great! I don't think any souls will be lost. And some souls may be saved... women who don't like to think of themselves has the B team. Maybe, I'm wrong. Do people here believe God is male ( Adam , my image etc?) I'm certainly no expert, and am open to other opinions. Don't take it personally, I just think TNIV may bring more people to God. |
||||||
4 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 32892 | ||
The issues of disagreement with TNIV involve questions of transparency of the TNIV to the biblical manuscripts. The "gender" of God is not at issue. What is at issue is whether the Bible is being translated to reflect what it truly says or being manipulated to coddle to the interests of feminists or politically-correct liberals or any other special-interest groups that may want to toss their hat into the arena. --Hank | ||||||
5 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 32897 | ||
The only comment I want to make on this issue is to raise one question: Does anyone think that there is a big enough market to support such an edition? It would seem to me that if so many actual Bible-readers are opposed to such a "gender-inclusive" edition, there would be few people actually purchasing a copy of it. After all, how many "feminists and politically-correct liberals" are really going to rush out and embrace their own copy of ANY Bible? My predition? This Bible will go the way of the NRSV...used, but only in a very limited fashion. --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | srbaegon | 32900 | ||
Hi Joe I'm afraid there is probably is enough market. It could be they are trying to pull from those who may see NRSV "as less than desirable" but don't want to change because there's nothing else out there with such inclusive language. BTW, NRSV is widely popular in the old "mainstream" denominations (i.e. Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran) which have liberal leanings. It's market is small but solid. Steve |
||||||
7 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 32902 | ||
Okay, I hope you will forgive me for so quickly going back on MY claim to only make one comment, but here are some of the disturbing things that I have seen regarding the TNIV. First of all, what about those situations where the author CLEARLY used the feminine nouns. For example, James 4:4 in the TNIV reads "You adulterous people" rather than "You adulteresses." What is the justification for changing THAT, since the Greek clearly renders it as a feminine description? Other things that bother me have not to do with the text itself, but the spin that is being put on this edition. Here are some statements from the IBS Web site: "The NIV is an extremely accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 1984. The TNIV is an even slightly more accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 2001." The TNIV is MORE accurate? That is quite a statement, don't you think. And in only 16 years they managed to improve seven percent of their previously "good" work! "There is a growing need to reach today's generation with language they can understand and relate to. As English language usage changes, the Scriptures must be presented with unwavering accuracy in a way that clearly and accurately communicates in today's language." Unwavering accuracy....hmmmmmm. Beware, my brothers (and sisters) of anything done in today's evangelical market to "reach" individuals in terms that they can relate to. That usually comes by way of diluting those hard-to-digest, but timeless truths that collide with the spirit of our age. In addition, many of the New Testament passages which utilize the word "Christ" now use the word "Messiah," despite the fact that there is no textual basis for changing the word. Yes, Christ and Messiah are equivalent words, but God inspired Christos in the Greek, and 2000 years of church tradition has consistently made a distinction in its translation of the word "Messiah" (e.g John 1:41, John 4:25; Matthew 1) and the word "Christ." It is quite presumptuous of them to make what I consider to be completely unnecessary "revisions" in the clear Greek text itself. A lot of the changes are defended by their efforts to "make clearer" the doctrine that is found in Scripture. Since theology is subject to interpretation from the text itself, wouldn't it be wiser to be as faithful as possible to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and let the church itself be occupied with the proper interpretation of the text? Well, those are my 20 cents... --Joe! |
||||||
8 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | srbaegon | 32905 | ||
Care for your 18 cents change? I agree completely. I was disappointed to find someone I respect (Dr. John Armstrong) recommending it. I wondered if he had read it before making his comments. Steve |
||||||
9 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Reformer Joe | 32986 | ||
That's interesting that Armstrong is recommending it. I would like to see his exact comments. Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary, another scholar whose work in the reliability of Scripture is quite respectable, didn't seem to see a big problem in it, either... --Joe! |
||||||
10 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 32989 | ||
Thus far we are hearing both protest and praise of the TNIV from the halls of theological academia. I think it possible, if not likely, that we will see some members on either side of the issue reversing their initial responses. However, the success or failure of this or any other translation will ultimately be determined, not by endorsements of those who are supposed to know everything under the sun or by publishers' hypes, but at the grass-roots level -- by the guy in the pew, or the local pastor or Sunday school teacher, or trusted friend who endorses or rejects it. The King James Bible took a lot of heat during the first years of its existence, but it came out all right. On the other hand, I can remember the big to-do made over the Good News Bible shortly after it hit the presses, and now I don't personally know anyone who uses it. Today we have, in addition to TNIV, two other new kids on the block: the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). It will be most interesting to see how these new offerings fare in the highly-competitive and saturated marketplace. And who knows how many other translations, that now are little more than a gleam in some publisher's eye, may be waiting in the wing for their day in the sun?...... The day may come when a prospective purchaser of a Bible may be asked by the clerk, "Do you want one with or without Hell and Sin?" --Hank | ||||||
11 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | kalos | 33012 | ||
Hank: In general it seems that it takes about 100 years for a new translation to catch on with the Bible reading public. Then when the time comes, it takes another 100 years for people to discontinue their use of one translation and adopt another. I'm not talking here about individual Bible readers. I mean groups of people, e.g. conservative Christians. The NKJV, for example, is very popular among many conservative churches -- NOW. But it hasn't always been that way. As was the case with the original NIV, the NKJV did not catch on instantly. Nor do I see people quickly abandoning their NKJV Bible for a newer translation, regardless of the merits of that translation. (Note that my point here is not the NKJV itself, but rather people's perception of and preference for it.) My point is even though the English Standard Version or the HCSB, for example, may be as trustworthy, there's no reason to expect that either will pre-empt the NKJV or original NIV anytime soon. Regarding adjusting the vocabulary of the Bible to fit the progressive dumbing down of America, I make this observation. For 350 years school children raised their reading vocabulary so as to be able to read the [KJV] Bible. Now it's the other way around. And the versions geared toward the lower reading levels are the dynamic equivalent or colloquial or paraphrased translations. If we keep lowering the reading level of our translations to keep up with the reading level of today's children and youth, where will it stop? Eventually we would be going to a wordless comic book Bible. Talk about sacrificing accuracy. Regarding those who desire a 100 percent literal Bible: buy an interlinear Greek-English version. Indeed, if someone made a speech in Spanish, for example, and the interpreter translated the idiomatic expressions literally, the non-Spanish-speaking hearer would be totally lost. "No hay mal que durante cien anos" translated literally is "There is no trouble that lasts 100 years." Who is going to instantly recognize that this means "Bad luck doesn't last forever?" There are many other Spanish idioms which, if translated literally word-for-word, would have no meaning for us. The same is true of other languages, as well. Lastly, many are saying "I haven't seen the TNIV yet." Well, the text of the TNIV is available online at www.tniv.info Grace to all, kalos |
||||||
12 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 33035 | ||
Comparing the Use of Inclusive Language in the Bible __________________________________________________ Traditional Versions ********************************** King James Version (KJV) - Contains absolutely no verses where "man" is rendered as "person" with a plural construction, etc.. New King James Version (NKJV) - Contains 2 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense (Lev. 24:17a [Hebrew 'ish'], John 6:10a [Greek 'anthropos']), and contains 2 verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun (Judg. 17:6 [Hebrew 'ish'], Psalm 62:12 [Hebrew 'ish']). New American Standard Bible (NASB) - Contains 2 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense (John 6:10a [Greek 'anthropos'], James 1:19 [Greek 'anthropos']), and contains one single verse where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun (Ex. 33:8 [Hebrew 'ish']). Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Contains 3 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense (Exodus 12:4 [Hebrew 'ish'], John 4:28b [Greek 'anthropos'], John 6:10a [Greek 'anthropos']). New International Version (NIV) - Contains 17 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense, and contains 7 verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun. (Verses and Greek/Hebrew available upon request.) Gender-Inclusive Versions ****************************************** New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - Contains 97 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense, and contains 3 verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun. (Too many to list here.) New International Version, Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI) - Contains 94 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense, and contains 2 verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun. New Century Version (NCV) - Contains 92 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense, and contains 5 verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun. Good News Bible (GNB) - Contains 90 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense, and contains 2 verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun. Contemporary English Version (CEV) - Contains 97 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense, and contains no verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun. New Living Translation (NLT) - Contains 93 verses where "man" is rendered inclusively, or in a plural sense, and contains no verses where an inclusive term is followed by a masculine resumptive pronoun. * Verses and Greek/Hebrew words were not listed for the NIV, NRSV, NIVI, NLT, CEV, NCV, and GNB due to length. I posted this information so that we could gain a better grasp of the differences in translation that are exhibited in each different Bible Version. Blessings to you, Makarios * Above information taken from pages 205-214 of "Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy" by Mark L. Strauss, 1998, InterVarsity Press |
||||||
13 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 33039 | ||
Very interesting. Helpful post, good and faithful servant Makarios. --Hank | ||||||