tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post114046223215817324..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: About the TNIVWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1140665680101288162006-02-22T19:34:00.000-08:002006-02-22T19:34:00.000-08:00Thanks Wayne for writing this. It has been very i...Thanks Wayne for writing this. It has been very informative. To be honest I just haven't had time to research about the TNIV, so thanks for your work on that.<BR/><BR/>I hope to spend some time myself in looking into it some more - but contrary to my first impression, it now seems that there are other versions out there that are much more "gender inclusive" than the TNIV, which actually to me is very interesting because of all the things I have heard about the TNIV.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your response to my question - is it greatly appreciated.<BR/><BR/>Have a good day,<BR/>NathanNathan Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11590875357974623024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1140650962128841042006-02-22T15:29:00.000-08:002006-02-22T15:29:00.000-08:00Jeremy, you wrote "What you retain in the NASB but...Jeremy, you wrote "<I>What you retain in the NASB but lose in the TNIV is the sense that sonhood and not childhood is being granted</I>". Well, I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make between "sonhood" and "childhood". But which specific verses in TNIV are you referring to in this instance? One of my quarrels with TNIV is that it does not go far enough in the inclusive language direction at Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:5 where it mentions "adoption to sonship", with a footnote "The Greek word for <I>adoption to sonship</I> is a term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture." In Galatians 4:6 TNIV continues "Because you are sons,...", a reading which I object to because here TNIV as well as NASB has lost "<I>the gender-inclusive sense of 'uioi' when it would be applied to a mixed group</I>". I wonder here if you have actually read the TNIV renderings of these verses, or have simply made incorrect guesses about what they might be? I consider that NLT has done much better with these verses: Galatians 4:5-6 reads "...so that he could adopt us as his very own children. And because you Gentiles have become his children,..." - although I accept that no translation will ever perfectly convey all of the nuances of the original.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1140632876642589342006-02-22T10:27:00.000-08:002006-02-22T10:27:00.000-08:00Peter H: The NLT is as thoroughly inclusive as the...Peter H: The NLT is as thoroughly inclusive as the TNIV, and I believe it has singular 'they'. I may be wrong about that. If your only problem is that one thing, and the NLT doesn't do it, then I have nothing to say here, but I'd be surprised if they don't use it, and I'd be surprised if that's your only problem. Going from 'adelphoi' to "brothers and sisters" is as big a change in form, particularly in contexts where it's arguably addressing only male brothers (as some claim in James, since they take it to be a letter written to male elders). Going from 'adelphoi' to "friends" or "dear friends", as is common in the NLT, seems to change the sense entirely, and I just can't see how preserving the gender connotation is worth losing the very meaning of the word. I've been very disappointed with how the NLT handles gender translation.<BR/><BR/>Wayne: I would argue that there is an issue of accuracy with the TNIV, but it's just as much an issue with the non-inclusive translations. I think something is lost whichever way you go, at least in some passages. Carson's book is good at pointing this out with some of the passages he considers. What you retain in the TNIV but lose in the NASB is the gender-inclusive sense of 'uioi' when it would be applied to a mixed group. What you retain in the NASB but lose in the TNIV is the sense that sonhood and not childhood is being granted, and that involves all sorts of connotations regarding inheritance that childhood doesn't convey, at least to those who know anything about the ancient world. The question is which element is more important to preserve, and people can disagree on that, but I would say that both translations lose something. That does amount to some level of inaccuracy, though not one that should lead to telling people it's an inaccurate translation on the whole. No translation could pass that sort of test, because these sorts of loss will happen all over the place even apart from the gender issue.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1140527520116071982006-02-21T05:12:00.000-08:002006-02-21T05:12:00.000-08:00Peter, I understand your concern about replacing s...Peter, I understand your concern about replacing singular "he" with apparently plural "they". Do you have similar concerns that singular "thou" in KJV was replaced in modern translations with originall plural "you"? See Wayne's posting on <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/02/you-and-yous-in-english-bibles.html" REL="nofollow">You and yous in English Bibles</A>. Both "they" and "you" are now ambiguous between singular and plural. As a result there are both second person and third person passages which "<I>lose[] something very important when that "individual" aspect is removed</I>". This is perhaps not an ideal situation for Bible translation, but it is a fact of the English language. Because of this fact it is not possible to communicate every nuance of the original clearly in English, at least without long explanations or artificial devices. Every language has such peculiarities which complicate translation. Those who really want to research these nuances need to look at the original language text, or at commentaries based on it.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1140477916557669092006-02-20T15:25:00.000-08:002006-02-20T15:25:00.000-08:00Peter Hamm said:When you translate the word "he" i...Peter Hamm said:<BR/><BR/><I>When you translate the word "he" into the generic plural "they" you lose the original individual force of the passage. The TNIV does this a lot. That's why I won't use it.</I><BR/><BR/>Peter, are you referring to the syntactic plural of the English word "they" or its meaning as in commonly used English sentences such as:<BR/><BR/>"If every pilot knew the exact length of each runway on which they land, there would be fewer airplane overruns."<BR/><BR/>Does the word "they" in this sentence sound singular or plural to you?<BR/><BR/>How about this sentence:<BR/><BR/>"Whoever believes in Christ will receiver their promised reward of eternal salvation."<BR/><BR/>Does "their" sound like it is referring to "whoever believes in Christ"? If so, does whoever sound like it is plural or singular? Do you think "their" is referring to any single person or to a group of more than one person all of whom are believing in Christ?<BR/><BR/>Have you ever heard of the English pronoun usage called singular "they" which has been used for a long time, including in the King James Version, as in Numbers 2:17, 2:34, 15:12; 2 Kings 14:12; Matthew 18:35, Philippians 2:3? If this singular "they" usage was considered good English in 1611 A.D., why should not its continued usage in 2006 also be good English?Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1140464553101398472006-02-20T11:42:00.000-08:002006-02-20T11:42:00.000-08:00Wayne. Good post.The TNIV strictly speaking is sup...Wayne. Good post.<BR/><BR/>The TNIV strictly speaking is supposed to be on its own and apart from the NIV which Zondervan/IBS has pledged will never be changed. So one will never buy a Bible marked NIV that will have different wording from the 1984 revised copies of the NIV. That's my understanding of it.Ted M. Gossardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580691315315271791noreply@blogger.com