Customer Reviews

The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

All of this book's critiques are based on the TNIV's 2002, release. If the reader of this book looks carefully at this book's examples of where the TNIV goes wrong, you'll notice it references the 2002 edition. But there are differences between the 2005 and 2002 edition. These changes were probably made because of people like Grudem!

This book does explain their side well. They did expose some questionable parts of the 2002 edition, and their critiquing of the TNIV is probably what drove some updates to be made of the 2005 edition.

I think this book illustrates why it is good to always have two opposites arguing an issue. Just like in politics, each side's constant critiquing of the other, only drives the final product to be stronger! If the Grudem like people did not exist, some real problems could have remained in the TNIV 2005 edition. On the other hand, if TNIV folks did not exist, our Bible translations would remain using language that does not address the changes of today's language. We wouldn't realize that "he\man\brothers" no longer means both male and females to those using today's language.

The TNIV does have some issues, but so do all Bible translations. Just like with any other Bible translation, you should have one or two others that you read also. Grudem's picking apart of the TNIV does not invalidate it as a translation, anymore than picking apart the nasb or kjv would invalidate them as translations also

Read this book, so your views on this issue can be sharpened. Then go buy a book favoring inclusive language and read that too!

After reading several documents and sources on the gender-neutral controversy, I find critics of these new translations baffling. Even in English, the use of masculine pronouns and the word "-man" (i.e. chairman) is used in our language to connote both male and female applicability.

Christians must face the reality that masculine pronouns and male representation historically has been the standard method of male/female referencing.

Has it ever occurred to us that it's dismissive to lump women with men but wince at the thought of lumping men with women. Women are NOT men but are compelled to feel comfortable being referred to in the masculine. It's gone on so long most of us don't realize how dismissive it is.

The arguments and refutations are not concerns of misapplication, but refusal to admit that the dignity and personhood of women should actually be acknowledge and not co-opted into male identity in written language.

Most men would be absolutely insulted to be referred to collectively with feminine references yet most men truly believe women should be comfortable with masculine reference.

If traditionalists truly believe biblical truths apply to everyone, it's best to get over the fear of using language to include everyone. Translations like these are NOT about inclusion, but are about using language to respect, address and acknowledge each gender.

Ok, whether you agree that women should be ministers or not, the thing is here not to tamper with the wording of the Bible. The introduction is written by an egalitarian professor who, while supporting female ordination, opposes gender-neutral Bibles because they are dishonest.

The editors and publishers of the TNIV have been very dishonest with the public and the evangelical world at large. They signed the Colorado Springs Guidelines then withdrew days before the TNIV NT was released - long after they violated their pledge to not do a gender-neutral Bible.

These authors go point-by-point to show the problems with gender-neutral translations of Scripture as well as the history of the whole TNIV business. They argue in favor of neutrality where warranted (e.g. the word "anthropos" as "human") but the opposition goes further, mandating that the word for male (Gk "aner") can also mean anyone, which is bad Greek and bad theology.

If you want to rewrite the Bible to fit your theology (or to make money), just admit it. If you want good translation principles, read this book, which is far more fair to the opposition than egalitarian books (e.g. D.A. Carson's book) are to the complimentarian side.

Grudem's perspective on the TNIV translation is informed by his sexist intepretation of scripture. He claims that the TNIV is a "gender neutral" translation. This is a false statement. The TNIV is actually a gender specific translation, meaning that the gender language is masculine when the text clearly refers to men, feminine when the text clearly refers to women, and inclusive when the text clearly refers to both. Grudem's preferred translations, which use masculine language when women are clearly included with men, would more accurately be described as "gender neutral".

Grudem's nit-picking with the TNIV in his latest book is his attempt at undermining the credibility of a translation that he finds threatening. Grudem finds the TNIV threatening because he holds to what he claims is a "biblical" view of men and women in which women are to always be subjugated to male authority. Any translation that reveals the inclusiveness of women in the scriptures threatens his "biblical" view of womens' roles in the church and in the home. Grudem fears that the TNIV will grow in popularity and that his beloved NIV may fade in popularity. He successfully steamrolled (effectively sensored) the publishing of the NIVi in the United States several years ago, and he is unhappy that the IBS and Zondervan didn't give up on publishing a gender-accurate translation. His grudge against them for not completely caving in to his influence seems to be motivating his "scholarship".

Grudem's arguments against the TNIV are not in keeping with a clear understanding of the principles of Biblical translation. The official TNIV website clearly defends the translation against these mis-guided attacks, and further discussion about translation is readily available online. For a balanced understanding of the issues of biblical translation, don't bother reading Grudem.

any hype re: gender neutral or "unbiased" translations is ridiculous. They are no new news! the RSV and the NRSV have been out for 20-30 years; each translation is gender neutral and very literal in its approach to the text. Anyone who tries to find an agenda behind having an accurate translation of Hebrew and Greek has an agenda themself -- to keep the Bible as representative of a form of Christianity where men have a special place and the language of maleness is undeniably present in places where this is simply untrue. Anyone who has a decent Hebrew or Greek lexicon can discover for themselves that pronouns used in the original text are often neutral and have been translated in the KJV or NIV according to trends in English usage, not original manuscripts.