Better Bibles Blog has moved. Read our last post, below, and then
click here if you are not redirected to our new location within 60 seconds.
Please Bookmark our new location and update blogrolls.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Grudem on Albert Mohler radio program

Dr. Grudem has been busy lately, continuing his public accusations against the TNIV. On Oct. 26 and 27 he spoke against the TNIV on Dr. Dobson's Focus on the Family radio broadcasts (see our preceding blog post). On Nov. 3 he appeared on the Albert Mohler radio program. The title of the broadcast was "Choosing a Bible: Which Translation is Best?"

You can hear the broadcast by going to its webpage and listening to the streaming audio or downloading the mp3 file of the broadcast.

Categories: , ,

3 Comments:

At Thu Nov 17, 02:18:00 PM, Blogger thehararite said...

Does anyone find it ironic that Albert Mohler went out for some time about how we don't speak King James English any more so Bibles have been updated to be in the vernacular, yet we also don't use male pronouns and nouns as general terms for people but somehow that difference from vernacular is bad?

 
At Thu Nov 17, 03:08:00 PM, Blogger Wayne Leman said...

Yes, it is ironic, but not to Mohler, Grudem, et al, because for them using a Bible version with updated English is only a linguistic issue. Using a Bible with more gender inclusive language is, for them, a theological issue, having to do with what they believe is God's divinely ordained rules for different roles and proper subordination for women. For most of us, theological issues are more important than other ones.

 
At Thu Nov 17, 05:23:00 PM, Blogger Ted Gossard said...

Wayne, I agree. But that is so strange. Because in all the passages of male-female relationship the TNIV meaning is substantially no different than the ESV (example, the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage).

They have to know that in most cases where "generic he" is abandoned, the meaning is inclusive of females.

But they will pick at places like where pater might be rendered parents (or "forefathers"- NIV rendered "ancestors"- TNIV). And losing the patriarch element in a passage like Psalm 1 (which may have its cons, though I think is more like pros).

They won't be won over. As you point out, their "beef" is theological and really has next to nothing to do with faithful translation- in my opinion.

Again, though, what's frustrating for me is what little substance they have in their arguments. I don't see how the majority of Christians who would hear what they say, then take up the evidence for themselves would not consider their outcry to be overblown at least or "much adieu about nothing" or at the very least questionable.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home