Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God's will, both publicly and privately--behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; |
Subject: Good-bye, NIV |
Bible Note: Greetings, Steve! I appreciate the fact that you have seen this discussion as a crusade to protect Zondervan's and the International Bible Society's names from being tarnished! However, nothing less than a statement or action from the organizations themselves will help us to begin to answer our questions and to begin to see these organizations in a "trusting" light again. It was much different when they came out with the NIVI. However, at that time, the NIV was (and still is) THE most popular Bible translation, and the only translation that has came the closest in usurping the supremacy of the KJV as the popular translation of choice. Evangelicals have adopted the NIV as "their own." And they have done this to a degree that no other translation has enjoyed except the KJV. When the NIVI came out, it was out of shock that they would seek to change the NIV so quickly. However, even with that in mind, I remained "silent" in that debate, since (in my mind) it was like the NRSV or the NLT coming out. And if you saw my "comparison chart" that I posted the other day, you would see that the NRSV and the NLT, among other translations, are fluent with "gender-inclusive" or "gender-neutral" language. The only translations that do not overly contain "gender-neutral" language are the "traditional" translations, such as the KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, and the original NIV. I have yet to examine the ESV and the HCSB in the case of "gender-neutral" language, but my guess is that they will prove themselves true as well. However, the announcement of the TNIV is much different. First of all, it comes only five years after Zondervan/IBS came out with a statement that they were going to abandon all plans in publishing a revised edition of the NIV containing gender-inclusive language. Evangelicals "assumed" that Zondervan/IBS "got the message" and had learned just how much we had embraced this translation, the NIV, and that it was very uniquely special and important to keep it the way it is! My friend, the reaction amongst evangelical scholars (with the introduction of the NIVI) was hardly any different than the reaction of KJV Only advocates when they are approached with an NIV. However, what evangelicals "stand for" is in much contrast to that of KJV Only advocates: Evangelicals such as myself do not see any need for "gender-inclusive" language to be introduced into the Bible. We believe that the NIV was/is exceptional just the way that it is! Has the English language really changed to the point that we must update the NIV, a translation that has only enjoyed 24 years of existance? Second of all, why release the TNIV and the NIV side by side if the NIV is so flawed and outdated? If the TNIV is really a 'revision' of the NIV, then why not cease publication of the present NIV (1984), update it, and come out with a new NIV (2002) with a new copyright? And why even attempt to do this only five years after the debacle with the NIVI? It seems very clear to me that Zondervan/IBS does not want to lose the sales of the NIV (and it would most assuredly do so if the NIV itself was given a new copyright and introduced gender-inclusive language), and it also seems clear to me that they are "playing to the crowd" by introducing the TNIV. Either way, the only "profit" I see is in the dollars. They should rest their pens and sit back to watch the NIV make its place in history, instead of jeopardizing the longevity of the NIV by somehow making themselves "untrustworthy." If the NIV is somehow "flawed", then who are we to argue? But the truth of the matter is is that the NIV is not as "flawed" as the TNIV supporters make it out to be. That is why we have taken our stance, and why we have chosen to boycott Zondervan/IBS: we believe that introducing "gender-specific" or "gender-neutral" language into the Biblical text should not be done, since the whole idea stems itself from the women's rights movement, and society should not directly effect what we put in or how we translate the Bible. Steve, unless you are a member of the board at Zondervan/IBS, then you will not be able to sufficiently answer our questions, and you will not be able to "win" this crusade by convincing us. Blessings to you, Makarios |