Category Archives: bible translations

Mediating translations: Isaiah 63:9

Posted on
5

Isaiah 63:9

NIV:
In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them.		 NET:
Through all that they suffered, he suffered too. The messenger sent from his very presence delivered them.
CSB:
In all their suffering, He suffered, and the Angel of His Presence saved them. 

 
NJB:
In all their troubles, it was no messenger or angel but his presence that saved them.		 NAB:
in their every affliction.  It was not a messenger or an angel, but he himself who saved them.


Merry Christmas! I’m looking at Isaiah 63:7-9 in preparation for this Sunday’s Christmas 1A message and found v.9 to be in much dispute.  The difference in interpretation is huge because the resulting differences in

In the NIV, CSB, NET (and ESV/RSV), the meaning offers a comforting message.  God declares his love for his people because it illustrates how when we are burdened, that God also bears a burden and sorrow along with us.  God feels the suffering of God’s people. However, in the NJB, NAB (and NRSV), the rendering does not show God suffering.

Another resulting consequence is that in the [NIV, ESV, CSB] the “angel of his presence” was there to save them, but in the [NJB, NAB] it is not a messenger or angel that saved them, but rather, his own presence.

Given this whole passage from vv.7-14 is actually about the crossing of the Red Sea, and that the “Angel of his Presence” alludes to the angel’s role at the time of the Red Sea crossing (see Exodus 14:19), I think NIV, CSB, NET offers the most intelligible rendering of Isaiah 63:9.

And not that it’s of any significance, but this interpretation also happens to go nicely with the theme of God’s ability to identify with humanity in the N.T. reading of Hebrews 2:10-18 (Year A, Christmas 1).  But for technical reasons, I’m compelled to go with the NIV, CSB, NET rendering on this one.

Mediating translations 2.1 – 1 Timothy 3:11

Posted on
Reply

On this first comparison, I’m looking closely at a single verse: 1 Timothy 3:11.

NIV 2011:
In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.		 CEB:
In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do.
HCSB:
Wives, too, must be worthy of respect, not slanderers, self-controlled, faithful in everything.		 NET:
Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.
NJB:
Similarly, women must be respectable, not gossips, but sober and wholly reliable.

In the original Greek, the word used for woman or wives is gune (γυνή).  This word could be used for either virgin, engaged, married, or widowed. The CSB and NET tend to be a conservative interpretation in its rendering of “wives”.  “Woman” seems less interpretive but there is a strong reason that it may be referring to the wives of deacons because the next verse begins by speaking about being a husband to one wife and who manage their children and family properly.

The CEB’s rendering of “women who are servants in the church” is very interpretive and is an attempt to give credence to the office of female deacons in church leadership.  I don’t believe this is an accurate rendering of the word gune and it is not the right place to make such an interpretation.

The NIV 2011 has made a change from the NIV 1984 from: “their wives are to be women worthy of respect…”  This is a good change and moves away from interpretation.

The word “slander” is very different from “gossip”. The word used is diabolos (διάβολος), which means the devil or the accuser in English is translated as: false accuser, devil, or slanderer.  I prefer “slanderer” over “gossip”.

The choice between the words temperate or sober, I think I prefer sober because the Greek word nēphaleos actually means sober or may be circumspectively sober.  Temperate is no longer used and has lost its contemporary meaning.  It was used by the “temperance society”.  I don’t think we need to be afraid of implying that women may use some alcohol but “temperate evangelicals” will tend to stay away from this, and therefore, prefer temperate.

Between “worthy of respect” and “dignified”, I think I prefer the former because “dignified” carries a hint of distinction and highbrowedness.  Worthy of respect or honor should come from character rather than how one carries one’s own appearance.

“pistos en pas” is directly translated as faithful in all things.  The first four translations do this.

All five translations are accurate but I will call NIV 2011 the winner on this verse of 1 Timothy 3:11.  Then follows NET, NJB, HCSB, and then CEB.

See also: The search begins | #1: 1 Tim.3:11 |

Mediating translations: the search

Posted on
6

I haven’t done any serious blogging in a while but I hope things will change. In the near future, I will be blogging on mediating translations by doing some comparisons to see how they render some of the passages of text. Since my last series on mediating translations, several new revisions and updates have come out:

  1. Updated New International Version (NIV) 2011,
  2. Common English Bible (CEB), which is brand new
  3. Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) 2009, and
  4. New English Translation (NET), and
  5. New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).

I’ll be concentrating on the first four but the first three translations are of special interest to me because they are newly updated.  I would like to see how they stack up against one another.  The CEB, currently available only in the New Testament, is a brand new release this year so that’s a very interesting and fresh translation that I haven’t had much opportunity to explore yet. It is an ecumenical translation whose translation/editorial team is mostly led by scholars from mainline protestant denominations.

Mediating translations will not include formal translations like the ESV, NRSV, NASB, or NJKV.  Nor will it include dynamic translations like the NLT, God’s Word, The Message, NCV, NIrV, GNB.  I’ve done similar comparisons in the past but I want to explore the newest updates just to see what’s improved and what’s better.

Common English Bible, New Testament, 2010

Posted on
6

I received a paperback copy of the New Testament (2010) in the new translation, Common English Bible, courtesy of friends at Abingdon Press and Augsburg Fortress Canada.  Thank you for this preview copy.  The entire bible is still yet to be published in 2011.

It is a more dynamic easy-to-understand translation, and so I suspect it is meant to gain a younger audience and those at a more primary reading level. On its website, it stated it as being a hybrid of verbal equivalence with dynamic balance and common language so I think it may be at the same reading level as the NIV and HCSB.  It is likely not as dynamic as the NLT.

From my limited reading of it, the first thing I noticed was that it renders “Son of Man” as “the Human One” (e.g., Matt. 24:39, 44).  This is a very different from the traditional rendering and it’s very gutsy but I think it’s still accurate and, I think, less elusive than “Son of Man”.  I think “the Human One” will take some time for readers to get use to it.

Another thing that is untraditional is to translate “hell” as “hades” or “grave”.

In the story of the birth of Christ, the magi (wise men), Matthew 2:11 says: “Falling to their knees, they honored him.”  Other translations use the traditional “worship him.”  This is another gutsy move.

The CEB renders Torah as “instruction” rather than “Law”. In the past, “Law” has been taken to mean statutes rather than instruction.  This will help the reader avoid a wrong understanding of what Torah really is.

I will examine the CEB more in some of my future posts.

Like the NRSV, it is an ecumenical translation done by 115 scholars from 22 denominations.  It is a translation sponsored by an alliance of denominational publishers, including Presbyterian (USA), Episcopalian, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ, and United Church of Christ.  This translation will also make the Apocrypha available, which will make it more accessible to churches that use it, e.g., Orthodox, Catholic.

I wish to thank Abingdon Press and Augsburg Fortress Canada for sending me this copy.

Acts 2:23 – Were Gentiles lawless or merely not abiding by Jewish law?

Posted on
Reply

Were Gentiles lawless or merely not abiding by Jewish law?  What difference does this make? A big one, I think.  Translations that render lawless has connotations of being completely lawless.  Those outside the law implies not holding to Jewish laws, but not necessarily without law.  The rendering in the ESV and CSB imply that Gentiles were completely lawless, which can be misleading.

Acts 2:23
ESV: this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (also in CSB, NAB)
NIV: …and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
NRSV: …you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. (also in NJB)
NLT: …“lawless Gentiles”; and NET: …“Gentiles”

Translations that render a-nomos (ἀνόμων) as “lawless” or “without law” may still be technically correct, but this might not have been the writer`s original intent.

Were Gentiles completely lawless? No, Roman society was ruled by law, particular by Law of the Twelve Tables;
or less lawful than Jewish society?  Maybe;
or not living by Jewish laws?  I think is this most probable.

I suspect the writer of Acts was simply trying to imply that Gentiles did not live by Jewish law but were not necessarily completely lawless.  I find the NIV rendering is overly interpretive.  The NLT`s is okay. The NET is inaccurate.  Personally, I prefer the rendering of the last two translations NRSV and NJB on this one because it allows the reader to see Gentiles as only being “outside of Jewish law” but not necessarily without law.

NIV 2011: Gender-inclusive language in Matthew 18:15-17

Posted on
8

I am happy how it handles gender-inclusive language in using singular (“The one who. . . ,” “the person who. . . ,” “‟whoever. . . ,” and the like) instead of the awkward plurals (“they, their, etc.”).  The Committee’s translators’ notes says:

While the Greek word anēr (‟man” or ‟person”) was frequently translated with masculine forms in English, it is clear in several contexts that the word refers to men and women equally (an option endorsed by major dictionaries of the Greek NT).

Being contextual is not for the sake of trying to be gender-inclusive.  We need to look at facts when the writer or the speaker being quoted is intentionally speaking to both men and women. This is the way most of us speak in real life anyway, isn’t it?  In our everyday speech, how many of us direct our speech only to men?  Maybe some times but for the most part, I think I speak to both men and women when I preach and teach.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 18:15-17 to see a difference between the NIV 1984 and NIV 2011.

NIV 1984:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

NIV 2011:

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Was Jesus speaking only to men or to both men and women?  Is gender-inclusiveness only for the sake of being gender-inclusive?  Or is gender-inclusive because Jesus, the speaker being quoted, was directing his teaching to the entire group of listeners?  If we are being gender-inclusive only for the sake of being neutral even if the speaker’s intention was directed to men, then I want nothing of it.  But if it was the speaker’s original intention to speak to both men and women, then “Yes!  I’m all for the changes in the updated NIV 2011.

I’m liking the updated NIV 2011

Posted on
5

I’ve just been informed that the Updated NIV 2011 is now available on BibleGateway.com for preview. Thanks to fellow blogger TC Robinson for informing me. I think the news was released when I was out of the loop. In the mean time, it looks like others have also started blogging about the updated NIV of 2011 too: TC Robinson (here, here, here), Suzanne McCarthy (here, here, here, Iver Larsen (and here), Bill Mounce,  Joel Hoffman, John Hobbins, Rick Mansfield, David Ker, Peter Kirk, and Brian Fulthorp. Comparison charts by Robert Slowly and John Dyer (and here) (HT: Wayne Leman).

Well, I’m glad the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) got past the bumps of the rough ride concerning the debacle of gender-inclusive language.  When pro-ESVers got on the anti-TNIV bandwagon and ignorantly trashed it, many of us bibliobloggers weren’t too happy about it, especially when gender-inclusive translations like the NLT got away without any lumps. It was a classic case of bullying.  When CBT trashed the TNIV, I remember I wasn’t too happy about that (here, here & here), but I’m glad the CBT took responsibility to back up its previous revision, the TNIV.  The translators’ notes states:

“As stated in the September 1, 2009, announcement regarding the planned update, every single change introduced into the committee’s last major revision (the TNIV) relating to inclusive language for humanity was reconsidered…. Nowhere in the updated NIV (nor in the TNIV, nor in any of the committee discussions leading up to either version) is there even the remotest hint of any inclusive language for God.” (see translators’ notes…)

And I’m glad that changes to the NIV do not happen haphazardly:

“Therefore a change is introduced into the text only if at least 70 percent of the committee members present at the time of the voting agree to it.“

The changes to gender-inclusive language was intentional and so I think we need to support what CBT has done to bring these improvements into the NIV 2001.  In my eyes, CBT has redeemed itself.  Who cares what the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood thinks (here)!  I’m looking forward to reading more of the Updated NIV 2011.

Hosea 6:1 both NRSV and ESV unclear

Posted on
5

This week, I came across Hosea 6:1 in my reading.  I was reading it first from the NRSV and was confused; so I checked the ESV and was still confused.  I don’t think most people would understand this verse from the NRSV and ESV either (which are currently two of my top-3 translations).  Who would?  In this case, I’m glad there’s the NLT (my #2), T/NIV (my #99 ;) ), and other translations I always refer to for clarification.

The translators of the NRSV did a great job overall but there are parts in it that are not all that clear and sounds stifled.  The ESV translation committee had a chance to improve upon the NRSV but still came up short in comparison to the NRSV’s style and readability (in my opinion).
___________________________

NRSV   “Come, let us return to the LORD; for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; he has struck down, and he will bind us up.

ESV   “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.

T/NIV  “Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds.

NLT   “Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces; now he will heal us. He has injured us; now he will bandage our wounds.

CSB   Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us, and He will heal us; He has wounded us, and He will bind up our wounds.

NET   “Come on! Let’s return to the LORD! He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us! He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds!

New Living Translation on the rise

Posted on
3

The New Living Translation is on the rise and was the second most popular translation in unit sales for August 2010. I am not surprised it has risen to such popularity.  The ESV is holding steady, and the NIV is still on top after the TNIV getting dumped.

CBA best sellers list for August 2010

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS – Based on Unit Sales

1  New International Version – various publishers
2  New Living Translation – Tyndale
3  King James Version – various publishers
4  New King James Version – various publishers
5  English Standard Version Crossway
6  Holman Christian Standard Bible – B&H Publishing Group
7  The Message Eugene Peterson – NavPress
8  Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) – American Bible Society and licensees
9  New American Standard Bible update – various publishers
10  New International Readers Version – Zondervan

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS – Based on Dollar Sales

1  New International Version – various publishers
2  King James Version – various publishers
3  New Living Translation – Tyndale
4  New King James Version – various publishers
5  English Standard Version – Crossway
6  New American Standard Bible update – various publishers
7  The Message Eugene Peterson – NavPress
8  Holman Christian Standard Bible – B&H Publishing Group
9  New American Standard – various publishers
10  Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) – American Bible Society and licensees

Were the tongues “distributed” or “divided” in Acts 2:3?

Posted on
2

When I first read in Acts 2:3 about how the early Christians received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (or glossolalia), I learned it from the KJV’s rendering of “cloven tongues”.  However, this is not necessarily an accurate picture of what may have happened in Acts 2:3.  Different translations differ in how they portray the appearance of the flame of Pentecost. This may also impact our theology of the charismata.

How is it rendered in the original Greek?  It uses διαμερίζω (“diamerizō”, divide, part, cloven). The word diamerizō may be defined in several ways: literally in distribution or in appearance, and also, figuratively in dissension.  We can rule out the third: dissension. This leaves us with either distribution or appearance.

Greek: καὶ ὤφθησαν αὐτοῖς διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρὸς καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐφ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστον αὐτῶν,

The NRSV, ESV, CSB and KJV all seem to portray flames (or tongues of fire) being “divided” (in the sense of being split in half), and resting over their heads. (Notice first picture below on the left with the divided flames).  The NRSV/ESV/CSB renderings interpret diamerizō in such a way that it leads the readers to view the flame as the object of the matter.  As a result, the reader will focus on the physical appearance of the flame, rather than, the action of the flame.

ESV: And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.
CSB: And tongues, like flames of fire that were divided, appeared to them and rested on each one of them.
NRSV: Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them.

When I read the New English Translation (NET), I noticed that the flame is not “divided” (in the sense of not being split in half), but rather, it is “distributed” and “spread out” amongst the people.   Notice NET’s rendering of “spreading out”  projects an action of distribution, rather than, a static image of physical appearance. The word diamerizō may be interpreted as being distributary or dispersionary, which is also in line with the Spirit’s nature of distributing gifts or charismata. This helps the reader to perceive tongues in a more active sense (like fire in a raging forest fire).

NET:  And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them.

The Revised English Bible (REB) use of the word “distributed” also portrays an image of tongues of flames being distributed in the  dispersionary sense.  This rendering of diamerizō is dynamic too.

REB: And there appeared to them flames like tongues of fire distributed among them and coming to rest on each one.

The NLT, however, completely avoids making any interpretation regarding the appearance or distribution of the flame, all though it tends to focus on its appearance rather than action. Perhaps its translators didn’t know how to properly render diamerizō.

NLT  :  Then, what looked like flames or tongues of fire appeared and settled on each of them.

The TNIV could be interpreted either way.

TNIV: They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.

I tend to prefer the NET bible’s rendering because it allows for γλῶσσα (“glōssa”) to be interpreted as a language that is dynamic and is actively spread out or distributed to others, rather than a tongue of flame being a static object.   The REB is my second choice.

Exodus 22:8-9 “God” or “Judges”?

Posted on
6

I think this will really bug some people as it bugs me.  It seems that Exodus 22:8-9 is clearly referring to judges but some translations like the NLT,  ESV, NRSV rendered elohim as “God“; but TNIV and CSB rendered elohim as “judges“.  Yes, technically, “God” is correct; but it seems clear to me that elohim (in the sense of a small “g” gods) which can be translated as judges, was what the writers/scribes intended.

Should we go with what we know as technically correct? Or should we go with what we know the writer/scribe/editor intended?

_________________________  Exodus 22:8-9 _________________________

NLT But if the thief is not caught, the neighbor must appear before God, who will determine if he stole the property. 9 “Suppose there is a dispute between two people who both claim to own a particular ox, donkey, sheep, article of clothing, or any lost property. Both parties must come before God, and the person whom God declares guilty must pay double compensation to the other.

ESV If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s property. 9 For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.

TNIV But if the thief is not found, the owner of the house must appear before the judges, and they must determine whether the owner of the house has laid hands on the other person’s property. 9 In all cases of illegal possession of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any other lost property about which somebody says, ‘This is mine,’ both parties are to bring their cases before the judges. The one whom the judges declare guilty must pay back double to the other.

CSB If the thief is not caught, the owner of the house must present himself to the judges to determine whether or not he has taken his neighbor’s property. 9 In any case of wrongdoing involving an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or anything else lost, and someone claims: That’s mine, the case between the two parties is to come before the judges. The one the judges condemn must repay double to his neighbor.

Luke 18:29 – Is TNIV gender-accurate?

Posted on
2
Matthew 19:29

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother (NRSV)

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother (TNIV)

 Mark 10:29

there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father (NRSV)

no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father (TNIV)

 Luke 18:29

there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents (NRSV)

no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents (TNIV)

everyone who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents  (NLT)

Were TNIV translators gender-accurate or too aggressive in their rendering of Luke 18:29?  This one is questionable.  The word ἀδελφοὺς can mean “brother” in the masculine plural but has been translated as “brothers or sisters” in other passages where adelphas (ἀδελφὰς, sisters: fem. pluaral) is absent.   I checked other translations and found no other translation went as far as TNIV did in Luke 18:29—not even the NRSV or NLT.  The NRSV and NLT rendered this as simply “brothers”.

The Matthew and Mark parallels rendered adelphos (ἀδελφοὺς) as “brothers” and adelphas (ἀδελφὰς) as “sisters”.  Did TNIV follow the pattern set in these parallel verses of Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29, in which “adelphos” and “adelphas” were rendered as “brothers or sisters”?   The Matt. 19:29 and Mark 10:29 parallels are definitely correct, but Luke 18:29 now becomes questionable when placed in a comparative context with these other parallel passages.

If TNIV is right on this one, then NRSV and NLT are wrong.  What gives me a feeling that TNIV may be right in this case is Luke’s use of guneis (γονεῖς) for parent instead of pater and mater (μητέρα ἢ πατέρα) for father and mother.  Luke may have intended to use guneis as a gender-inclusive term, so in following Luke’s use of inclusive terminology, Luke 18:29 may be more accurately translated as “brothers or sisters”.

Other places where TNIV went further in gender-inclusive language than the NRSV or the NLT are in Luke 14:12, Acts 15:1, 22:5.

NRSV and NLT are now my two gender-inclusive translations of choice

Posted on
20

Hopefully, this will be my last post on the TNIV for a little while. There are better things to blog about.

As for a gender-accurate (gender-inclusive) translation, I will be going with the NRSV as my main translation of choice; second will be the NLT.  I may be in the minority camp here but I am not alone.  I believe this camp will grow in the future.  There are also a few others who will be leaving the TNIV as their mediating translation of choice.  Sue at Suzanne’s Bookshelf mentioned there are a few who will be going with the NRSV as their main translation, “now that the NIV/TNIV is in limbo”.  [added: Rick at This Lamp will also no longer be recommending the TNIV as a primary bible.]  I’ve been reading a lot of other blogs lately about this issue of the death of the TNIV in the past few days.  I know most of my biblioblogger friends out there are going to stick with reading the TNIV, but I will not, based on Zondervan’s business ethics (i.e., $$$$).

If the new NIV in 2011 tones down its gender-inclusive language (either by 5%, 10% or 15%), then it’ll not be much different from the inconsistent ESV.  Even if 95% of the TNIV will be preserved, you can bet that some of the gender-inclusive language will be reversed to a masculine language.  So why would TNIV supporters (who support gender-inclusive language) want to be a fan of an inconsistent translation in the future?  I predict that some current TNIV-supporters may come to see it this way a few years down the road when they see the light.  They will realize that Zondervan has betrayed the pro-TNIV supporters.

If the new NIV of 2011 tones down the gender language, the likes of Grudem and the anti-TNIV and ESV-only crowds have won.  Personally, I still refer to the ESV in my study.  I’m one of those funny ones who support the TNIV and the ESV even though I have nothing to do with the ESV-only crowd.  Though I think the ESV is inconsistent in its use of gender-inclusive language, I still have more respect for the ESV and Crossway than for Zondervan.  Crossway has backed up its translation and has done an amazing marketing job on the ESV.  Zondervan has not.  It has treated it disgracefully.  Dan Philips calls the TNIV a misbegotten version (but he takes an anti-TNIV position).  I call it a product of ‘Hagar’ but I take a pro-TNIV position).

Furthermore, I will not be stocking up on more TNIVs (like Rick advised TNIV-over at This Lamp) because, as I’ve said before, if it’s not good enough for CBT, Biblica and Zondervan, then it’s not good enough for me.  Why should I read from a translation they do not intend to support?  A dying translation is as good as a dead translation.  I will not invest my time and effort to read, teach or preach from a dead translation, which is why I don’t read the NEB, REB (or maybe even the NASB…sorry ElShaddai and Gary Z.).

Even though I have lost some respect for the three parties who are involved with TNIV’s death, my love for the TNIV translation is still alive.  Ironically, I still encourage TNIV-supporters to read the TNIV.   Until I see what happens in 2011, I don’t think I’ll even touch the TNIV for a while, at least for a while until my head cools down a little and my ill-feelings toward Zondervan, Biblica and CBT subsides.  If there truly is a resurrection of the TNIV and its gender-inclusive language is preserved, I may return to the new NIV, but for the time being, I will hold off from it because I have my doubts about CBT, and Zondervan’s intentions (which I believe are not good, of which I may express more in a future post).

Zondervan and TNIV: like a father who has thrown out its child after birth

Posted on
10

Biblica has lauched a new website at www.nivbible2011.com to receive inquiries about the new NIV .  Watch the video.  They need to apologize to those who supported the TNIV but I haven’t heard a word.  What they said is really to please its critics.

Due to this recent move by Zondervan, I think I will be boycotting TNIV for a while.  I’m going to lay it aside and not even refer to it. Why?  If people at Zondervan do not think it is good enough for public use, then fine, it’s not good enough for me either.  Some may think this is being petty but this is how I see it.  Betrayal of the public’s trust is important for me.  For me, it’s like fathering a child and dumping him out after it has been born.  Zondervan has done this same thing with TNIV.  It did not have enough compassion to love its own child and defend it from harm.  If not, then why should I bother to defend Zondervan?  If Zondervan had integrity, they would have stuck up and defended it from its critics but they didn’t.  They bowed to peer pressure and the almighty dollar $$$$.  So for me, Zondervan has betrayed the people who have supported it.  To continue supporting the TNIV is like condoning the actions of a father who dumps his own child. As a reader of bibles and a follower of translations, integrity of the publisher is important for me.  Even if Zondervan puts out the new NIV in 2011 (with some likeness of the TNIV), I’m don’t feel I will be very excited to see it.

Am I still upset about this whole coverup fiasco?  I am and will be for a while.

What translations will I be referring to now?  I will be referring mostly to the NRSV, ESV and NLT.  These will be my top translations for a while now.