Originally posted by RoQuEr

I have read through much of the TNIV version, and I am awfully
disappointed. This is much less a translation than it is an interpretation. It is
hardly accurate as your website claims. If you believe it is the most accurate around, I am worried about trusting you with the NIV. I find very little difference between it and the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation.

Truly sad to come from a company I have trusted for years. I believe I will move to the NASB and work to get my church to do the same. You have disappointed me.

Dear David:

You'll be interested in reading today's commentary by Donald Cole, Radio Pastor of the Moody Broadcasting Network
http://commentary.mbn.org/cgi-bin/op..._commentary.pl

Zondervan Customer Care

Interesting commentary, but I would disagree with some of it. Actually the main disagreement would be with the hyping of the TNIV as the most accurate or very accurate, when in fact it is not. One of Donald Cole's arguments is that many languages do not have a masculine or feminine pronoun, so they must necessarily use a nuetral one. However, this argument has no marit when discussing two languages (Greek and English) that do have gendered pronouns. It is similar to justifying it by translating Greek to an African dialect with no gendered pronouns, and then from there to English. That hardly makes it a good translation or an accurate one.

Lastly, (and thank you much for the dialog, as I am sure our goals are similar) let me ask you to respond to my main argument. When we know that a Greek word means "he" and we translate it into "they" are we really translating or are we interpreting. This is very similar to what the Jahovah's Witnesses do with the New World Translation (though they obviously take more liberty in interpreting, but it is an issue of degree and not kind). They add "a" in front of "God" in "The Word was God" which removes
the Trinity effectively.

Again, when you translate the word "cat" into "animal" you have not made a more accurate translation, you have made an interpretation. If nothing else, please respond and justify how this is a translation and not an interpretation. Thanks.

Dear David:

By its very nature, the work of translation necessitates a certain
amount of interpretation because one language never can be transposed into another language exactly word for word. Contexts must be considered to translate correctly (for example, the word tongue could be translated, but without its context you wouldn't know if the meaning of it is the organ in the mouth or the leather part of a shoe). Helpful resources on this can be read at the following sites:

Bible, Babel and Babble: The Foundations of Bible Translation
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/munger/

Accuracy Defined & Illustrated
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/accuracy/index.php

The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/

The Committee on Bible Translation
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/light/ed16/5.php

Your example of "cat" and "animal" is a good one: If the context of the writing pertains only to domesticated felines, then it would be inaccurate to change the word to "animal." But if the context of the writing pertains to all four-legged creatures, then "animal" may be the more appropriate word. The TNIV translators are saying that if the original context of a praticular Scripture is meant to be addressed to both men and women, then making that clear is appropriate. If it only pertains to men, they haven't changed that.

Thank you for your willingness to dialog.

The TNIV translators are saying that if the original context of a praticular Scripture is meant to be addressed to both men and women, then making that clear is appropriate. If it only pertains to men, they haven't changed that.

Sometimes the retranslation result is ugly, ludicrous, or both. The NIV's Mark 1:17 is the famous, "'Come, follow me,' Jesus said, 'and I will make you fishers of men.'" The TNIV makes the apostles seem like slave traders: "'Come, follow me,' Jesus said, 'and I will send you out to catch people.'"

Originally posted by Blade

That sounds reasonable to me. You're right though, it is an interpretation, not a translation (because they're interpreting when the original authors meant just men or both men and women).

Originally posted by Beaver
Isn't any translation an interpretation? Words don't always translate directly, so any questionable ones would have to be interpreted. I don't see the male vs female vs gender neutral as being any different.

Originally posted by Blade

In some ways yes, but in this case we're talking about a language that has an identifiable genders, but the intepreters are looking at each use of "he" and deciding if the authors meant just men, or both men and women and then translating accordingly. This is a little different than having a word of questionable definition, where some might say the author meant "red" and some think he meant "scarlett."

-David

Originally posted by kvrdave
I looked up the World article about it, and they ar definately slanted, but them I probably am, too

Here is a great quote

from http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/...02/cover_2.asp

Probably I should just switch to the NASB. It may not read as smoothly, but it is about as literal as there is.

Originally posted by Dr. Dean



· New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received.