I've decided to switch my preaching translation to the TNIV once we start at the new church (I’ve been using the NLT here in Monticello). I suppose making the ‘switch’ is still up for discussion, though. These are the pros and cons I’ve worked through with the TNIV so far:Click on the title to this post to read Jeremiah's pros and cons.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Another pastor switches to TNIV
Pastor Jeremiah Gomez blogs:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
The more I read the TNIV, the more I can't account for many of its translational choices such as leaving "hallowed" in the Lord's Prayer. There doesn't seem to be a consistency in translational method. On the other hand 2 Cor 5:21 translates "know" as "had" as in "had no sin".
I just don't understand how choices are made for the final translation. Maybe they need to publish it with the translator's notes like the NET!
To me the NLT is at least consistently dynamic and I can understand the patterns of the translation I think. I may not agree with every rendering, but at least it's part of a consistent pattern.
Also, did you notice that this pastor serves a Wesleyan church? Have you noticed that the TNIV/ESV fault lines are breaking down along the Arminian and Reformed fault line in many instances?
Hi Chuck, thanks for your comments.
I'd be confused to know if you're looking at the same copy of the TNIV as me. Consider:
“This, then, is how you should pray:
‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,'” (Matt 6:9 TNIV)
“He said to them, 'When you pray, say:
"Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.'" (Luke 11:2 TNIV)
Regarding 2 Cor 5:21, does "had" not communicate anything that "knew" did in other translations?
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21 KJV)
“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:21 TNIV)
Knew means "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information" (Oxford American Dictionary). But that's not really what's being communicated in 2 Cor 5:21, is it? It's not that Jesus was not aware of sin--it's that Jesus had never committed a sin. He had no sin.
Chuck, I also like the NLT, but tell me what you mean when you suggest that the TNIV does not follow a consistent pattern? Could you provide any examples?
Finally, in regard to your last paragraph, while I do recognize that many who advocate the ESV tend to be Reformed, I don't think you can draw opposite tendencies for the TNIV. In fact, many people forget that the original NIV translation was initially funded by the Christian Reformed Church (who have also endorsed the TNIV).
I don't know the theological affilliation of all the CBT members, but a number of them would consider themselves Reformed: John Stek, Karen Jobes, and Douglas Moo. Further, endorsers of the TNIV also include those of the Reformed persuasion: D. A. Carson, Timothy George, and John Stott immediately come to mind.
But it doesn't really matter, unless you are wanting to use these kinds of categories to write off certain segments of Evangelicalism, which in my opinion would amount to little more than an ad hominem attack rather than actually dealing with the issues surrounding the TNIV.
I've tried to post a response several times Rick but have problems with blogger.
1) You haven't grasped my point - why "Hallowed" in the Lord's Prayer (archaic), dynamic in 2 Cor 5:21, but overall a more literalizing trend vs the NIV.
2) In my opinion Zondervan has done nearly as poor a job reaching the conservative reformed community as the conservative reformed community has done speaking with wisdom about the TNIV
My apologies, Chuck. You're right that I did misread the first part of your post.
I agree (at least I assume we're agreeing) that "hallowed" is not the best choice in the Lord's prayer. I probably would have used something like honored or holy such as other recent translations do.
And you're certainly right that the TNIV is more literal in many places than the NIV. In my opinion, because the literalizing has been done in an extremely judicious manner, this is one of the reasons why I believe the TNIV is MUCH BETTER than the NIV.
I just posted this comment in BBB but noticed since you're already talking about TNIV translational issues here, I'll copy/paste it here.
----------------
I ran across a word in the TNIV that struck me as odd and out of date.
Lu 8:23 says: A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger.
It's not wrong but I haven't heard anyone use the word "squall" in a long long time. That's a word that popped out at me a few days ago. I'd prefer something like "windstorm" (ESV, HCSB, CEV, NRSV). I may be wrong but isn't "squall" something you never hear being used on the weather network?
Kevin,
Personally I agree that the word doesn't seem common... it sounds like a New England sea coast term to me, i.e. regional.
But when I check Google News
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=squall&btnG=Search+News
It got hits from Massachusetts and India with 1 in the UK. And in Philadelphia, "Summer Squall" is also the name of a race horse!
It's hard to know where to draw the line. I think that squall is a fairly commonly-used word around here when talking about the weather, and well-understood. But it isn't used too much by most people. Do you use a word that's understood but rarely used, even if it fits the situation better than another word?
As for the use of "hallowed" in the Lord's Prayer, that's the way we say it in church: "...hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come; thy will be done..." It drives me nuts. People have it memorized that way. But does that mean a contemporary translation has to use the archaic language?
Let people say it that way in church if they must. But let's translate it in our Bibles into contemporary English.
Let people say it that way in church if they must. But let's translate it in our Bibles into contemporary English.
Amen brother!
Post a Comment