Talk:Today's New International Version/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article says the New Testament of the TNIV is "scheduled" to be published in April 2001. Can we update this? Has it been published yet?
The TNIV New Testament (ISBN 0310922623) has been published by Zondervan. The Old Testament should be released in 2004 or 2005. -hoshie
As of February 2005, the full TNIV is available. rae 01:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the assertion that 3/4 of the TNIV's changes are in a more literal direction. Feel free to re-add it when you can cite a source for it! :) raekwon 23:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
TNIN and hoi ioudaioi. I have updated the section referring to translation of Greek hoi ioudaioi as "Jewish leaders" in some contexts in the TNIV, to bring the article more in line with the NPOV of Wikipedia. I cited sources to support the revisions. wleman 03:17, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
I have checked the three external references given. The first is a general list of books, with no specific reference given. The second provides political reasons for the so-called translation, the third is to the American Bible Society, which justifies why it has translated the term "the Jews" as "the Jewish Leaders". The example given of the Fox in relation to Herod[1], meaning small and weak, as opposed to sly, can be dealt with by a marginal note (a small weak creature) in the text. To use this reference is like asking a thief to act as a character witness to a person accused of thieving! When the redactor of John wrote "the Jews" - he had available to him the word "Leader" and could have written "Jewish Leaders". Whilst some scholars (for example Willis Barnstone) feel that an ur-John text (pre-finished Gospel) did not use hoi Ioudaioi as an operative term, the New Testament writings as we have received them do have this term. It can be acknowledged that the phrase hoi Ioudaioi in John and the Acts owes itself to the divisions between Synagogue and Church. Never-the-less the words in the text are hoi Ioudaioi - the Jews. David Burke makes this observation;
"The problem is not how well the English locution reflects the Greek text or the escalating polemical realities of the first century situation, but rather its effect on the (poorly informed) modern reader" [2].
Burke's article is well worth a read. If anti-Semitism had not been a problem over the centuries, I suspect that the term would be rendered "the Jews". However the complexities of understanding the devisions of Synagogue and Church and its impact upon the text, the use of the definite article (the) which is suggestive that all Jews were involved, coupled with anti-Semitism, have forced translators to interpret the text, rather than provide a straight translation. This should be acknowledged.
I will make a change to the text at some point to reflect this reality. --Osjknights 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Singular "they" "Also, supporters point out that what is claimed as the singular they has a long history in the English language". No examples are supplied either from the KJB or Shakespear - hence the references to KJB and Shakespear removed.
Concrete examples of the critics are supplied from the text.
Why can't they copyleft bibles?
Lawyers for the New Living Translation and Amplified bibles in particular are hounding the web just like the RIAA. Unlike worldly non-christian music though, isn't the word of god supposed to be spread freely? Why not a copyleft license such as the GFDL (GNU Free doucmentation license) or the CC-by-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). The copyleft is very important. It prevents proprietarization of derivitative works (including shell-wrapping if the copyleft is strong like the GNU-GPL) --GreatInca 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Inaccurate quotation of Acts 7:20
The quotation from Acts 7:20 TNIV "he was cared for in his Parent’s home" seems to be incorrect. The correct version, from the TNIV website [3], is "he was cared for in his parents' home". (I know I am not supposed to take text from another website, but how else can I prove that this is inaccurate?) The misplaced apostrophe completely loses the point in the context which is that TNIV has changed a singular to a plural here. And capitalising "Parent" suggests that TNIV has made this into a reference to God, which of course it has not. Peterkirk 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In the "The TNIV Launch and Ensuing Controversy" section, "fundamentalist" has been changed to "evangelical". Previously, "conservative" was changed to "fundamentalist".
Removal of critical material and a question of Neutrality
It seems to me that any material which appears too critical of the TNIV is removed. To my mind this distorts the reality and removes neutrality. If the article is to enable a reader to explore fully the information on the version, some of this material ought to remain! Osjknights 06:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality to which side?
Critical material that is more opinion than fact distorts the picture. Hearsay is not fact. Post a topic and let’s discuss.
I removed these links earlier for reasons that their determination of an inaccuracy is more an opinion. They obviously don’t like the word choices used in translating, but since they don’t like it, does that determine it's in error? They claim 3,686 inaccuracies, that’s a lot of inaccuracies! One might wonder how the TNIV made it to the presses.
http://asubmergingchurch.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/29093.html http://asubmergingchurch.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/29119.html
Their charges of inaccuracie are mostly over gender and follow up with comments like, TNIV = Totally Non Inspired Version. That doesn’t sound like to me a fact based approach nor a very spiritually inspired one.
I also removed the paragraph below for further discussion. What does it prove, say or promote? With word choices like “stealth”, “catered” “there was a suggestion” and “it is now stated” which hints at being less than honest, really needs more backing since what is being hinted at could be considered by some to be serious charges. Knight1000 01:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Although it is now stated that "TNIV is a revision but not a replacement of the NIV", there was a suggestion that this might be the case, a suggestion which caused bad publicity. It was noted in the USA "World Magazine" 29th March 1997, that Kenneth Barker, the CBT chairman and secretary clearly stated that the Committee for Bible Translation’s desire is to have only a "gender-inclusive" NIV. This was reported in an article headed "Stealth Bible" Femme Fatale cover story. As a result of the Inclusive Langauge controversy, some Evangelicals made preparations to ensure that a Bible more faithful to a literal text, and which still catered for Evangelcials would be available. From this two new versions appeared as alternatives; The Holman Christian Standard Bible and The English Standard Version.
Why is the website http://www.no-tniv.com/statement_leaders.php being attached to the TNIV wiki entry? The TNIV is the only newer translation I can find where the "Statement of Concern by Evangelical Leaders" over trustworthiness and gender keeps popping up. What is their bases for the TNIV not being trustworthy?
I would think this could be a concern with other new translations as well if it's all over gender, but for some reason the focus is just on the TNIV. The TNIV isn't the only translation that changed how translation could be done today in regards to trends in gender and the English language. If they have concerns over gender/translation, what's the deal with the URL that spells out NO-TNIV.com? It couldn't be NO-NRSV.com or NO-NLT.com?
Also, most of those people listed don’t qualify as translation experts. It’s not their field. They can just offer opinions. One of the names, Tal Brooke, is known more for his emphasis on conspiracy theories than Christianity. Knight1000 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality to which side? (see supra)
Such as the word "stealth" refers to the title of a Magazine Article. It was a fact that the 'suggestions' in the passage deleted, refers to reported comments (made clear in the passage itself) in the Article from Kenneth Barker, the Committee for Bible Translation Chairman. These reported remarks were softened, by the use of the word "suggestion" - leaving room for any inaccuracy in reporting or subsequent denials. That the article cited in the World Magazine cover story set in train a re-action and debate, is beyond dispute! It is part of the NIV/NIVI/TNIV story.
There is also no doubt, as it is a fact, that as a result of the Inclusive Langauge controversy, new Bibles did emerge, and have catered for Evangelicals, having emerged from such groups. The question is, would these bibles have emerged if there had been no controversy surrounding the NIV? The evidence seems to point to a negative. The evidence for the English Standard Version arrising out of the controversy is documented on http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html, and likewise for the Holman Bible is found on http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb.html
Thus the passage deleted has sufficient facts from which to defent itself.
The websites; http://asubmergingchurch.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/29093.html http://asubmergingchurch.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/29119.html do indeed use the word "inaccuracies", however the link to these pages provides the word "criticism", there is little difficulty in using links with a caveat.
Neutrality is not a case of having a few passages of positive comment, followed by a few passages of negative comment, it is seeking to tell the story as it is. Like it or not like it the Inclusive Language Version caused controversy in the way that other such bibles did not. The reason for this, is that the Evangelical sector, who are passionate about Bible study took to the NIV in such a way, that the sales outstipped other versions. Many of these same Evangelicals did take the issue seriously, when developments arise which play on the very same passions that caused the devotion to the NIV in the first place, controversy is understandable. Surely the NIV arose in part, to provide an alternative to what was considered a liberal RSV. Thus as the NRSV will not cause the same vexation. It is this vextion for a very real number of people, that provides what is the story behind the controversy. The Committee for Bible Translation were affected by the controversy, hence the ditching of the NIVI, and amendments to the NIrV in 1998, and the controversy is part of the story - in a way it is not for other translations!
In addition to the passage removed by Knight1000, gone is the section on "The TNIV Launch and Ensuing Controversy" so more and more the article becomes an advert for the TNIV.
For my own part I sue the RSV for private study and the NRSV for liturgical use.Osjknights 13:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone for a inclusive language translations or other wiki entrys?
The statement below has been lessened in wording from my original complaint and re-added. The removal of subtle hints of impropriety without basis improves it immensely, and thanks.
Maybe a solution to this in the future would be to have a wiki page about inclusive language translations to tell the story. Inclusive Language links to the political correctness section, but I think we have a topic all to its own in inclusive language translations. Maybe that would be the place to display grievances against this new way of translating so we’re not targeting the TNIV page for it all. I don't want to do this without some kind of consensus.
The background osjknights mentioned I'm not sure what to do with. In my opinion it seems out of scope when trying to get a simple and clear picture of what the TNIV is but I'm not sure its my place to be the final arbiter on all that. Putting it all together in the same pool of water seems to muddy that water, to me. The reader is left with a sense of controversy. Knight1000 13:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
inclusive language bible translations wiki entry?
"The reader is left with a sense of controversy" - that may in fact, given the story, reflect the reality - however, the TNIV article could be streamlined to basic facts, with a very short passage which makes reference to the fact that it was launched in the midst of a controversy over the use of Inclusive Langauge, and that this debate is mainly restricted to Evangelical circles This section then could link to a new article, which deal specifically with the controversy surrounding such versions. There is an article on Gender in Bible translation which is very tame and factual, but what is needed in terms of preserving facts, is the story of the Controversy. Although can begin with the TNIV debate, it can deal with comments raised about other versions. For example, the TNIV is almost central ground if examined against the "The Inclusive Bible" by Priests for Equality, published by AltaMira Press (due out as NT & OT Oct 2007 - NT first published 1996).
The translating committee for the TNIV were buffeted by various forces for and against the inclusive language, beyond very modest changes, but they were key players in the debate, and the debate in which they were involved rightly is noted in any record of the version’s history. Perhaps a separate Article is the way forward.
Shunted into a new Article could be the following from the TNIV sections;
- Inclusive Language and the TNIV
- Supporters and Critics
- plus previous removed sections - as the reader will know they are entering an article about controversy.
Michael Marlow M.A. (specialised in Biblical Languages) provides a very useful page on http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.html , written from the perspective of a Conservative Evangelical. However Michael Marlow is a professional journalist, and his articles are well written and researched. The article may provide a template, taking into account his standpoint.
The Roman Catholic Church is involved in the Inclusive Langauge debate to the point of intervention from the Vatican, but the TNIV is not a bible they use - the Vatican's concern was over Catholic Versions - but it appears they were sensitised by the NIV Inclusive Language controversy (the intervention of the Vatican arose in the same time frame as the Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed - 1997).
Accordingly, the comments from the Article on the New American Bible (a Catholic Version) can direct the reader to such a new Article. I am sure, although I lack the time to look, there will be other inclusive bible versions with much the same brief comments from their crityics. Osjknights 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
inclusive language bible translations wiki entry? (see supra)
I apologize; I’m on the run so I can’t write much. I think your ideas are excellent. It would allow various sections to stay on fewer sets of topics and/or not diversify to the point of overwhelming the reader of a short article with too many different sets of issues.
I’ll try and read the Gender in Bible translation section in the next few days. I can already see some differing breakdowns in this area. Two examples might be, people feeling the original language was sexist to begin with, or me, language and use of certain words changed over time with no malice in the original intent. It’s the attitude in how people from different camps approach this.
I checked out that other link you posted; I need to do a thorough read. I did a quick scan and I see that due to the publishing of the “gender-neutral…NIV in Great Britain”, maybe this is a larger issue in some places than others. That might be something interesting to also explore.
I feel it would be helpful (and I'm not obligating you for this) to explore, in a minor way displaying the basic facts, other changes to the TNIV instead of having the whole thing focused on gender. Some of the information before, went to sources that were waiting to convict it upon release and cherry picked passages to back an already cemented view point. King James only-ists would be an example in this area. Knight1000 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)