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?

at

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous17/8/08 01:40

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daniel C17/8/08 02:00

    Isaiah:

    =P.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous18/8/08 06:29

    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...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel C18/8/08 22:59

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel C18/8/08 23:00

    Doulags:

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

    ReplyDelete

This is my blog, and in order to facilitate an edifying exchange, I have came up with various blog rules. Please do read them before commenting, as failure to abide by them would make your post liable to being unapproved for publication. Violation of any of the rules three or more times, or at the blog owner's judgment, would make one liable to be banned from posting unless the blog owner (me) is satisfied that such behavior would not occur again.