Wednesday, April 25, 2007

blog advocates open-mindedness toward TNIV

Joe Myzia blogs that we need to do more than just listen to those who criticize the TNIV:
In part 1 on the TNIV, I listed respected people on both sides of the TNIV controversy. What I did in that post was not take any particular side. I have people on both sides that I look up to. What this does is remove the issue of going with a "protestant pope". It forces a person like me, when their are multiple respected names on both sides, to be a Berean and check the issue out for myself. Of course, even if everyone was on one side, personally I think I should check it out anyway to avoid the "protestant pope" trap.

The way I check out a translation is I buy it. Then, I carry it around with me and no matter what church I may be at, or who I am listening to, I compare that version with what the teacher is saying. Sometimes, if need be, I look at the Greek if some interesting difference pops up.
If you'd like to read some material that seeks to refute the TNIV, then I would recommend this link from the website of The Council of Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW). Grudem is a part of this along with several other respectable names . . . men I read attentively.

However, may I say that while their stuff sounds convincing at first glance, when one reads the counters to their material, it might not seem so strong. Proverbs 18:17 tells us:
17 The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version.
(Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Pr 18:17.
If you've taken a stand on this issue, have you read both sides? How much on both sides? Has your review been lop-sided?
Let's follow Joe's advice and carefully examine the claims for and against the TNIV. At this blog we believe that if you do, you will find the TNIV to be a trustworth translation, not deserving of the the negative campaign which has been waged against it.

10 comments:

ElShaddai Edwards said...

Wayne,

I've just posted an update on my own search for a modern Bible translation... so far, the TNIV is doing quite well.

ElShaddai Edwards
http://elshaddai.wordpress.com/

Gary Zimmerli said...

Joe says it very well!

It's exactly what I did. When I examined both arguments, and started really looking at the TNIV for myself, I found a truly excellent translation which does not deserve the terrible attack that was launched against it.

I am praying for widespread acceptance and use of the TNIV.

sdonahue said...

I'm sorry but I am NOT open-minded to the TNIV. I think it is a horrible piece of work.I have studied the issues for years. I will not use it, nor will I give someone a Bible in that translation.

Wayne Leman said...

I'm sorry but I am NOT open-minded to the TNIV. I think it is a horrible piece of work.I have studied the issues for years. I will not use it, nor will I give someone a Bible in that translation.

It's good that you have arrived at your conclusion after years of study. Please share with us your ability to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek and compare that to the wordings in the TNIV.

Also, could you mention two or three specific translation wordings in the TNIV which you have concluded are in error? Please include the evidence that led you to conclude that they are in error.

We want to be open-minded ourselves on this blog. If the TNIV is in error in any passage, we can pass that info along to the TNIV team for them to correct it.

R. Mansfield said...

sdonahue, why do you feel the TNIV is "a horrible piece of work"? I mean, that's really strong language. There are some versions I don't use, but I rarely would give anything that kind of label.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Sdonahue,

I am interested in studying the history of translation tradition, either with or without reference to the Greek and Hebrew. I would be very interested in a few examples of what you find "horrible".

Kevin said...

"a horrible piece of work"

That's what they said about the KJV too! The KJV was hugely controversial when it first came out in 1611, but it's still around after so many centuries. And who could have imagined in 1611 that there would still be KJV-only people who would stick by it even in 2007? I just blogged about it recently.

It's encouraging to see people like Joe. I suspect that there will be more criticism directed toward the TNIV for at least several years. I think the controversy about the TNIV will "blow over" in several years. In judging history, I think and I hope, the TNIV will one day become a trusted standard like the NIV has become today. It deserves to be. People like sdonahue may disagree all they like, but like it or not, the TNIV will be around for a long time. Maybe he'll come around to it later. It takes time and patience... I'm one example of one who did come around to it.

scott said...

Whether or not its an accurate translation, I couldn't say. One thing, the reading level of the TNIV is way below the ESV/RSV/NRSV. Sorry, but I think that the TNIV is at a grade-school reading level.

Peter Kirk said...

Scott, why "Sorry"? This is one of the good things about TNIV, that people can understand it.

R. Mansfield said...

The Greek NT was written in Koine Greek. I wonder what grade level that would have been considered?

Especially Mark's gospel with its more street level grammar and vocabulary.

This idea of a high grade reading level as a mark of a good translation is a misunderstanding in my opinion. The higher the grade level, the further the translation is removed from the spirit in which the NT was written.