Customer Reviews

NIV Pocket Thin New Testament for Children

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This Bible is a good reading Bible. Some of it's renderings are also progressive and innovative. Still, I'm confused by the fact that the TNIV at times retains unhelpful renderings, some of which are quite dated.

First, the good stuff. Too many good changes to list, but I'll give a few. Romans 12:1 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God- this is your proper worship as rational beings." Though not technically literal, the idea of our service as rational- logical- is definitely in the Greek and missing in most modern translations (most have "your spiritual worship"). 1 Corinthians 6:9 changed the confusing "homosexual offenders" in the NIV to "practicing homosexuals," which is clearer and accurate. The first part of Romans 8 is masterful.

Genitives are handled well. 1 John 2:15b, "If you love the world, love for the Father is not in you." Renderings found in most versions are unclear as to whether it is referring to God's love for us or our love for Him. "Spiritual songs" is now "songs of the Spirit," which is interesting, though interpretive.

One of the problems in any dynamic rendering is that of excluding possible interpretive options that exist in the original. Any translator is also an interpretor; it's the nature of the beast and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that any translation is untainted by human assumptions or dogmas. I don't agree with the TNIV forcing trinitarian thinking into verses with other possible- and legitimate- options. (See Romans 9:5 and Phillipians 2:6 for examples.) Still, in order to use modern translations I must live with that fact. "Sinful nature" is also a forced interpretation, but they still offer a footnote with "flesh."

On the negative side, the NIV translators said years ago that they would change the Lord's Prayer in future revisions. However, the TNIV retains the original Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6,including the "hallowed" in verse 9 and the awkward and totally non-dynamic verse 13: "And lead us not into temptation..." What's up with that? (On this verse, see the NLT for clarity.) The TNIV promoters, in their ads, claim that the TNIV is the translation for the next generation, that it speaks to us today, etc., yet it retained some language that no one uses anymore. Note to translators: Lead us not into antiquated phrasing. In Romans 13:13, the TNIV retains "debauchery," a perfectly fine but unused word, rather than updating to the useful phrase "sexual promiscuity" found in many new translations. In the current generation, "sober" means "not drunk," and little more, so the phrases "of sober mind" and "sober judgement" will be misunderstood or lost to the reader. The TNIV also kept "temperate." Why? Does anyone use that word anymore? It certainly is not a useful or dynamic word. Acts 3:20 is worded in a way that people would never speak: "and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you- even Jesus." (The obscure use of the words "even"- as an identifier- and "might"-where "could" or "should" would be used in a real conversation- drives me nuts.) Oh well... I'm done now.

Sometimes the translators seem uncertain as to when to be dynamic and when to be literal. In Romans 8:9a they try to be both, which confuses me: "You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature [dynamic], but are in the Spirit [literal]." Compare this with the NIV rendering and share in my confusion.

Anyway, I hate to criticize any work that tries to make the Bible clearer using modern words, paragraph structure and sentence structure. The strength of the NIV was its great word flow and modernity, a theme the TNIV generally sticks with. This work is also not plaqued by the incessant use of run-on sentences found in many translations. The TNIV is very readable. I think it still needs more work. Most of the changes, including the gender related ones, are superb. I look forward to the complete Bible in TNIV.

The TNIV has come under much criticism from the evangelical world, including a boycott by the Southern Baptist Convention and attempts to have the translation removed from Christian book stores. This ire is "much ado about nothing" and indeed reflects the desperation of those who would resort to censorship in their efforts to promote their viewpoint.

What is the issue? Simply that the TNIV uses what is called "gender neutral language," which is the use of more inclusive language when the original language of Scripture calls for this. For example, in Matthew 4:4, according to the NIV, Jesus said: "Man does not live on bread alone..." Now when Jesus was making the point that spiritual sustenance from God's Word is needed even more than physical sustenance, obviously He wasn't implying that only men--and not women--have need of God's Word. In the patriarchal culture of Christ's time here on earth, in which women were regarded as property (though, significantly, not by Jesus), people would use masculine words when referring to all of humankind. Today, in our society which is unevenly making progress towards a conscious equality of all humanity, using a word such as "man" or "mankind" can imply that only males and not females are in mind. Exclusive application to men was not Jesus' intent in this verse--He was just using the idiom of the day. Well, as the preface to the TNIV says, the first priority of translators is "faithfulness to the meaning of the biblical writers" and therefore "the work of translating the Bible is never finally finished" due to the continual changing of idiom and meaning in any language. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy to the meaning of Jesus' words, the TNIV translates Matthew 4:4 as, "People do not live on bread alone..." In similar fashion, the TNIV will translate a verse such as Romans 12:1 as "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers."

This is the extent of the "liberal" changes found in the TNIV which are being so vehemently decried. The TNIV does NOT call God "mother," as some would imply (though the Bible includes numerous mothering images for God: Isaiah 66:13, Matthew 23:37-38, etc.)

I for one am thankful for translations such as the TNIV and organizations such as Christians for Biblical Equality which seek to make the full meaning of God's Word available in contemporary language and understanding. "Liberalism" in an area is not a wrong when the conservatives are defending something that God Himself is not even defending. Perhaps critics of the TNIV ought to check to see if they are fighting on the correct front.

Feminists may love it, traditionalists may hate it, but careful readers will just go away unsatisfied.

This translation includes some improvements on the NIV. Thus in Matthew 13:32 `Though it [the mustard seed] is the smallest of all seeds' (TNIV) is better as a representation of the Greek than `Though it is the smallest of all your seeds' (NIV). I also preferred Matthew 27:46 and Luke 1:15. However, on the whole it is weaker. The supposedly sensitive changes in gender issues have been carried out in a fairly indiscriminate way.

For instance, Matthew 5:22 now reads 'anyone who says to a brother or sister, "Raca"'. The problem is that 'Raca' is a masculine singular term in Aramaic. No one is any more likely to call a woman 'Raca' than are we to call a woman 'male fool'. The gender of 'Raca' should have been taken by the translators as a sign that the Greek here meant 'brother' not 'brother or sister'. The application of Jesus' teaching to include not insulting females should really be a hermeneutical step not a translational one.

Similarly indiscriminate are the translations in Acts 2:14, 2:22, 3:12, 14:15 and 17:22 which take the clearly male term ANDRES 'men' to refer to males and females. All along sensible people have been arguing that Greek ANTHROPOI can mean 'men and women'. Quite right. But no scholar has ever tried to argue this with ANDRES. Consequently, it seems that the translators are trying to blur the distinction between the original audience of the speeches in Acts and us today.

Probably the most obviously problematic passage from the point of view of gender has nothing to do with recent debates about inclusive language: In 1 Corinthians 7:4 we now read 'The wife does not have authority over her own body *but yields it to her husband*. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body *but yields it to his wife*.'

This is simply twisting the text. There is nothing in the Greek about 'yielding'. However, TNIV has actually moved the locus of authority from one spouse to exactly the opposite one. Now no doubt the translators were concerned about how wife-batterers might abuse the text. But that just shows that the text requires sensible interpretation and wise application not to be rewritten by the translators.

Aside from issues affecting gender we may ask whether a translation that has decided that the word 'saints' is too obscure a designation for the people of God can really claim to be using plain English when it introduces the phrase 'elemental spiritual forces' (Colossians 2:8, 2:20). Enquiry among various scholars specializing on Paul showed that they too were rather perplexed by the phrase.

The translation also does some unhelpful things textually:

In 2 Peter 2:15 we read of 'Balaam son of Bezer' with a footnote telling us that the Greek reads 'Bosor'. Weird. It is not as if either spelling means very much to the average reader, but on what basis do the translators decide that their spelling is better than that of the Greek?

In Mark 1:41 we read that Jesus 'indignant' rather than 'filled with compassion'. A footnote states 'Many manuscripts _Filled with compassion, Jesus_'. Strictly this is true, but it is rather economical with the truth: *all* manuscripts except for one Greek one and three Latin ones read 'filled with compassion'. The problem is that this type of footnote simply exacerbates what was already a tendency the NIV footnotes to mislead by giving a wrong impression of the textual evidence. The translators do not want average readers to know that they have in fact chosen to print a reading which very rarely found in manuscripts simply because they believe that it is more likely to be original than the others.

In John 3:3 (cf. 3:5) Jesus says, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again'. So, is being born again a result of seeing the kingdom or does it happen before? It's unfortunate for a translation to be unclear on something like this.

Since it is probably the case that the majority of changes with regard to the NIV are changes for the worse it would be easier to start a new revision of the NIV than to repair this.

After finishing this volume, I have read the New Testament 11 times. Before I read this translation the NIV was my favorite, it has now been replaced by this translation the TNIV. I believe this interpretation stays true to the Koine Greek and gives great foot notes to different manuscripts. It is very understandable and in the most modern English. I highly recommend this New testament to Christians and Gnostics.

I cant recommend this enough --an excellent and meaningful translation of the Lords Life and words. Yes there is some consternation on the part of hide bound traditionalists and fundamentalists right wingers---but it is akin to the same complaints regarding the switch of the virtually unreadable and unintelligible King James Version to the NIV. This would have delighted that most radical of all , Jesus Christ ---- who brought the greatest change in history and rattled the foundations of the Pharisees who condemned him for his radical and liberal revision of scripture-----which is why it is called "The NEW Testament ".

I realize that there are people opposed to this revision, but I feel that their reasons are not very well informed. First, there is no such thing as a 5th grade level translation (How many 5th graders even know Koine?). Don't put down all of the hard work done by this committee with insults. Neither should the use of new Christian imagery be so condescending.

Second, WHERE IS YOUR LOVE?

The NIV and TNIV are pretty different. 7% of text change is a lot, and here's a reason why: the TNIV is based on the latest (4th) edition of the UBS (United Bible Society's New Testament Greek Bible). This is the base text translators use everywhere; edited by translators for translators. The NIV's Greek text was its own version. (Perhaps this is where the 'lack of scholarship' comment comes from?) The NRSV is pretty good, but very literal. It is NOT the 'scholar's edition.' Scholars, and theologians to some degree, use Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, and Syriac texts--not English. (I won't explain why the list here--it's complicated) Ministers OUGHT NOT stick to one translation.

The TNIV is intended for any Christian, not just new ones. As for the allegation (and I paraphrase) of 'mistranslates for the purpose of being more sensitive to today's language usage,' how low can you go? Minor revisions do not merit a new name. This is not simply 'substituting words.' Every reprint of any Bible has minor revisions, but most people don't notice them. Everyday scholars discover a new connection and legitimate new text to cross-reference. Sometimes the more accurate translation is found later. (If you have not made a single mistake in your life, raise your hand) If your eternal life depended on it (God, please have mercy on us!), would you rather be accurate or stick to what you know? Have some respect for the 'gray hairs' and effort put into this!

I gather that most people responding are not of the younger generation. I am. I'm only twenty, and I know that there are people who take offense to saying 'a man' when that could mean anyone, or 'brothers'--as if there are no sisters. Today students are taught in English classes to NEVER use 'mankind' or 'he' (by itself throughout any writing) at all. It must be 'humankind' and 'he or she.' Sorry Neil Armstrong, your famous phrase is politically incorrect. Can he be quoted? Or will it end up as 'That's one small step for [a hu]man, and one giant leap for [hu]mankind.'?

Perhaps in reprints, the committee with vary their pronoun usage (alternating he & she is, thankfully, still politically acceptable), but you know we're all sometimes guilty of reading parts and not wholes of the Bible. :)

Translating requires that we get meaning across. Which means there are idioms (words put together that make no sense translated literally) and different meanings for the same word in different contexts. Since English doesn't have a word that can mean flesh/physical body/human being/earthly/worldly/sinful or human nature in different contexts (and NEVER all at once) and carries good, bad, or neutral connotations (implied meanings & feelings) with it, we HAVE TO be dynamic at least some of the time. Even the NRSV uses 'sinful nature' in particular verses--but whose to say which single meaning is The Literal One?

Greek has many fun grammatical nuances that are difficult to get across to English. Some of those sentence constructions are intended to let a reader know it's a different kind of verb. Other times the weird phrases are theologically important or mean something different from the usual English. Then there's the reverse problem of English words with their own baggage....

TNIV is not intended to make beautiful Shakespearean phrases out of every verse, and sometimes they are guilty of sticking with the familiar or simplest translation. Can you forgive them? :)

When you learn and grow, your understanding of the world must, by default, change, otherwise, you really haven't done either. It won't be easy, but who ever said our paths would be paved in gold? ('Jesus' would be the WRONG answer here). ^_^

<3 love ya lots,
jinny
1 John 3:18 --(my version) Tevkia, we do not love in words or by tongue, but in action and in truth. (Other versions are pretty, too--and actually more accurate grammatically--not to mention FULLY translated :), but this has proven true. ^_^)

I don't see the big deal.

If there is a greek word that means to address both men and women, why is it the cardinal sin to translate that word into a word in our language that applies to both men and women?

Now if this Bible took greek words that only applied to males, then turned them into english words that apply to both men and women, then I'd see a reason to make a big deal! BUT THE TNIV DOES NOT DO THIS! IT DOES NOT DO IT! IT DOES NOT DO IT....I'LL SAY IT AGAIN..........IT DOES NOT DO IT!

So why are all the paranoid nuts acting like the TNIV does this? I think they are either misinformed, or just listen to propaganda and are moved by fear.

AGain! If there is a greek word that means both "he or she", is it good to translate that word into an English word that means he or she, or should we translate it into a English word that only translate to "he"?

The people who argue against this translation, act like they are for purity of the word! But if they were really for the purity of the word, they'd be for this translation, because it translates greek "he\she" words into English "he\she" words.

Anyone who wants to translate a greek word that means both he or she, anyone who wants to translate such a word into the English language that only means "he" is actually perverting the word of God, and is translatig based on bias!

A previous reviewer complained that this translation was "troubling" because it wasn't true to the Greek, but instead tried to make the scriptures fit the culture. According to her, "to suggest that you can translate the same word as 'man' and then as a more 'gender neutral' term is absolutely ludicrous because Greek simply does not work that way."
Ahem... I hate to inform the reviewer, but the Greek language works PRECISELY this way. It is very specific about the difference between "man" (andros) and "human being" (anthropos), and to translate anthropos as "man" is not correct, and the old NIV was easily discredited as a correct translation for this very reason.
I would suggest to the reviewer in question that she find a new Koine Greek instructor. Apparently the one she's got isn't doing her or his job.

I work for a kids program for the Salvation Army and came online to research what bibles might be appropriate for us to distribute to the kids we work with.
Do I find reviews from those who are concerned with spreading the Good News and God's love to children? Comments on whether kids can understand this text? Whether the lay-out appeals to them, whether there are/are not sufficient aids to help them gain understanding etc etc?


I do not seek to undermine all your arguements- they are doubtlessly important, but I do not think this is a suitable forum, much less one that requires more than a nod in the direction of the stance translators have taken.


Remember many outside Christianity may well read these reviews. We may all have theological differences in opinion but we agree on what is important- Christ's death and resurrection. The church these arguements display, though I trust it is a false impression, is one divided and agressively so. We may not agree with a translation, and that's just fine, but why are we so quick to assume that the translators had some evil agenda? Even if misguided isnt it better to assume it was a genuine attempt to make the word of God accessible? And if it does go so far as to be false then let's say that, but say it with compassion-not anger.

Grace and Peace

The TNIV is an excellent update of the NIV. It continues the
NIV tradition of clear, contemporary English. While much of
the NIV is still there in the TNIV, the TNIV has made a few
changes here and there to make the translation even better.
Most, but not all, of the changes have to do with gender
accuarate language for people. This makes the translation
more dynamically equivalent. While this
is controversial this is the same philosophy used by the
New Living Translation, another translation by evangelicals.
Again, the TNIV has as its major strength a high degree of
clarity and readability. The English style is modern and
crisp, it reads well from the pulpit or lectern. Do not be
bullied by those who do not like the TNIV. I've wondered if
they had read it when I read their comments. It is a lot like
the NIV, not terribly different from the NLT, and a very useful
addition to my study desk and preaching and teaching ministry.
It is also quite useful as a Bible for devotional reading; I am
reading it through this year and enjoying it very much.

Some additional thoughts on the TNIV, June 4, 2002. After
reading the TNIV for some months now I have had the same reaction
to it that I did to the NRSV. It is an OK translation, not as
great as its predecessor, just OK. While I can affirm the use
of gender accurate language in translation to a certain degree
the NRSV and TNIV go too far. They bend too far towards changing
the language to suit me. Too many singulars are replaced with
plurals. The English style is not as good in either translation
either. The NIV is not perfect, but it did not warrant the
wholesale changes to gender inclusive language that the
TNIV makes. The NRSV makes the same mistake. I don't think
that the NRSV or the TNIV are great improvements. Neither
reflect current English usage. Where I differ from some who
oppose them is that I can recommend them, even though the
recommendation is rather lukewarm. My mind has changed on the
issue of gender accurate language in translation. It has its
place, but the TNIV and NRSV go too far. I'm hearing from
friends in the United Kingdom that the NIVI is not used very
much. I think publishers are trying too hard. Around 25-30%
of the Bibles sold in the U.S. are the KJV. After that the
NIV holds on as number one holding around 40-50% of the market.
Neither of these translations uses inclusive language, but

people read them. The NLT has done a pretty good job of
giving us a dynamically equivalent translation that uses gender
accurate language. Perhaps enough is enough.

So, if you are looking for a Bible to read from use the NIV. If you think
gender accurate language is extremely important use the TNIV.
It is OK, just not as great or ground breaking as the NIV. The
NRSV is OK for study, but it is not as great as its predecessor
the RSV, which is a treasure the church need not have lost. Check
out the English Standard Version and the New American Standard
Bible too. These are very literal translations, quite good for
study.

Update 1/21/2003
The TNIV is a good edition to my library. Like the NIV it
works best as a translation for reading and comparison with
more "literal" translations. I like it a lot and plan to
continue to use it. As I said above, its major strength is
its readability and clear, crisp English.