Sunday, August 17, 2008

A discussion on Bible versions and the TNIV

Over at Contemplations of a Young Calvinist, Douglas posted some random thoughts on Bible versions, and the thing quickly evoled into a pro-TNIV, anti-TNIV roundtable. I am for the anti-TNIV position, agreeing with the stand of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Wayne Grudem (the author of this article) that the gender-inclusivity expressed ubiquitously throughout the translation is severely detrimental to the text of Scriptures, and therefore the TNIV is a bad translation. CMBW even created an interesting website decrying the emergence of "Gender-neutral Bibles" which is rather interesting.

So what do you the readers think about this?

5 comments:

Isaiah said...

For me, any compromise on the translation of the original Greek/Hebrew is a no-no. In this case, I have voted against it as pandering to the feminist movement.

If we truly believe that the Word of God is divinely-inspired, then there's good reason that those personal pronouns were used.

PuritanReformed said...

Isaiah:

=P.

blackreformingkid said...

I will admit that I have been taken aback by how much discussion has taken place on the blog post. I will admit that I have been really quiet since I have very little knowledge in this area.

I hope that my seemingly "pro-TNIV" (really it isn't - I have just started reading it) hasn't offended you in any way...

PuritanReformed said...

Douglas:

Nah, it takes more than that to offend me. And it isn't hard to see that you are generally keeping quiet over the issue, which is a good thing. However, my opponents on this topic are fair game, especially since they are confident of their positions. As you can see in my last few comments, I am going to bring their dynamic equivalence methodology and cultural accomodation principles to their logical and absurd conclusions.

Also, while the issue, especially with regards to the Greek etc may be a bit technical, I think it would be a good idea for contemplate if there is anything which would cause you to state that any particular book which calls itself a Bible version cannot be truly taken to be one.

PuritanReformed said...

Doulags:

Oh, and FWIW, I don't see you as pro-TNIV.