Customer Reviews

TNIV Holy Bible

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

 

 

The TNIV translation will be controversial because of its use of gender-neutral language. However, it is much more sensible than the NRSV in its usage. In all the places where I had suspected that the NRSV had gone overboard, the TNIV retains the masculine gender.

The TNIV shows much less denominational bias than the NIV. While it retains "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, it gives "young woman" as an alternate reading in the margins.

In the places where I have compared it with the NIV, it shows an improvement in style.

The use of gender-neutral language in Bible translations is controversial -- but the use of language such as the word "brothers" to indicate both male and female Christians, while a literal translation of the Greek, can be misleading to modern readers.

But in some cases the Bible refers specifically to men. When the Old Testament refers to the "fatherless," it refers to children who have lost their fathers -- not "orphans" as the NRSV translates. In Biblical times, the father was a child's primary economic support.

The TNIV appears to exercise far better judgment than the NRSV.

I was delighted to receive my TNIV Church Bible, and am looking forward to reading the Old Testament with added clarity.

When the TNIV NT was released, John 1 was one of the first passages I noticed. It reflected the changes in language that have occurred since 30 or so years ago, when "man" and "men" were both used and understood to include both male and female. Thus John 1:9 reads "The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world" in the TNIV while the older NIV said "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world". Of course, that sort of change is what has engendered the most opposition.

A Word to the Reader includes this statement: "We trust .... that many will find it an improved representation of the Word of God, through which they hear his call to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and to service in his kingdom." To which I add my Amen.

One technical detail about this edition, that keeps my rating from being 5 stars: The type initially seemed smaller than that in the NIV and NIVI comparable editions. But on close comparison, it appears to be about the same size (or maybe minimally larger - comparing passages with a ruler sometimes gave slightly larger measurements in the TNIV), but the type is lighter, making it appear smaller. That may be something to consider if you have difficulty seeing lighter print; you may want to wait for a large print edition. The typeface IS smaller than that in the TNIV New Testaments. It's still quite readable.

Why is the TNIV a more accurate translation?

When you think of purchasing a Bible translation, take these into serious consideration:
(1) This is the Word of God.
(2) It is to instruct your daily living and train you in righteousness.
(3) You have to understand the Word to "rightly divide it!"
(4) God is serious and so are His Words.
(5) Your spiritual maturity depends on your understanding!

No translation is perfect; ALL translations have errors. Yes, the Word of God is inerrant! But inerrancy is a theologically technical definition that applies only to the "original handwritten" autographs by the Biblical authors. Fact - no autographs have been discovered as of current. Thus, a translation is not inerrant it is a tool, a translation! The vast majority of Bible translations are very accurate to their source manuscripts. English translations are completely trustworthy as the Word of God. Most general readers, often lack sufficient knowledge concerning the transitional nature of Scripture (how it came from Jesus, the Biblical authors and moved from the autographs to manuscript copies) and the textual criticism tools used by scholars to produce an English vernacular translation.

Here is some manuscript textual criticism to help readers appreciate the textual improvements of the TNIV over other translations:

[1 Samuel 8:16]
KJV: "And he will take ... goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work."
ESV: "He will take... the best of your young men and your donkeys"
They footnoted: cattle
TNIV: "He will take...the best of your cattle and donkeys"

Which is correct? Why does the ESV footnote cattle?
The phrase `your cattle' is the rendering that comes from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the OT made in Egypt around 250-150 B.C. The ESV takes "young men" from the medieval Hebrew text. Frankly, the linking of "young men" and "donkeys" is strange to scholars. The word for "young men" in Hebrew is bhrykm. The word for "your cattle" is bqrykm. In Hebrew, they are verbally about as similar as "Television" and "Telephone". This is how scholars know this is not an oral transmission error; they are too dissimilar orally! This was a coping error! In this textual variant, a single letter changed the meaning of the word. The Septuagint was translated much earlier and retained the "your cattle." This is an example of how textual variants are researched and compared to obtain the `original' intended autograph reading. Yet the ESV & KJV translators choose to use a poor source manuscript over a more accurate one, why?

[Mark 1:2] {2}
KJV: "As it is written in the prophets..."
ESV: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."
Footnotes: some manuscripts in the prophets?
TNIV: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

Which is right? Why is there a difference? Why does the ESV footnote: in the prophets?
The TNIV has used the best and earliest manuscripts as a source text, thus, "Isaiah the prophet!" The KJV translation committee made use of what they had at the time, flawed manuscripts. The ESV translation committee also got this one mostly right! So what is wrong with footnoting in the prophets? All of the second century translations (Latin, Coptic and Syriac) have, "Isaiah the prophet!" However, there is one manuscript before the ninth century, which reads "in the Prophets..." The citation that Mark is using is a combination of Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. It seems that this one copyist choose to "correct" Mark's original text to make it more precise! Sadly, the ESV included a footnote referencing an inaccurate manuscript as a legitimate source translation. The Committee on Bible Translation obviously rejected this one copyist's inaccuracy! I wish the ESV had done the same. The KJV was at the mercy of its errored source manuscripts.

[1 Corinthians 7:36] {3}
KJV: "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."
ESV: "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed..."
Footnotes: virgin
TNIV: "If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to..."

What was the Apostle Paul intending to say?
ESV weaknesses: (1) It uses a technical word "betrothed" thus it doesn't resonate with an American culture; (2) The gender of the betrothed can only be determined from the preceding verses, 37 & 38; (3) Sadly, they footnoted "virgin" instead of keeping it with the text?
KJV weaknesses: (1) overly wordy, and it does not resonate with American culture; (2) "if she pass the flower of her age" while beautiful it leaves a lot up to dubious interpretation, this is very ambiguous and misses Paul's intended meaning.

[1 Corinthians 6:20] {4}
KJV: "... therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
ESV: "So glorify God in your body."
TNIV: "Therefore honor God with your bodies."

What happened? Which is right?

This example illustrates that copyist on occasion have made changes to the original text for theological reasons! The words, "and in your spirit, which are God's" are found in most of the late Medieval Greek manuscripts. However this phrase does not appear in any of the early Greek evidence! Nor does it appear in the Latin-speaking church in the West!

Sadly translations like the NKJV and HCSB included these later theological additions to their translations. The KJV version was again at the mercy of its source manuscripts. The ESV did a pretty good job except "in" doesn't really capture the meaning of "with" very well.

Had this phrase been included in The Apostle Paul's original it is impossible to explain how/why it would have been left out so early and so often. Then magically reappear in later manuscripts?

DO YOU KNOW THE HISTORY OF YOUR VERNACULAR TRANSLATION? {5}

HOW DID WE GET OUR ENGLISH BIBLES?

"My concern is that some readers, whether they are educated or not, will realize that this translation does not agree with what they are accustomed to and will react against me with abusive language, calling me an evil person and a forger for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient text, as though I were trying to make changes or corrections to it." -Jerome 4th century A.D. concerning the Latin Vulgate

Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus. His job was to provide a revision of the Old Latin translation of the Bible. Jerome's concerns were justified! He, in fact, he received a great deal of criticism that followed him his entire life; yet, the version Jerome produced (the Vulgate) became the standard Bible of the Western church for... a thousand years!

It seems that history has recorded many occasions of rejection and outrage over translations! The English Bible is no different. It is ironic that given the harsh criticism Jerome received for even producing the Vulgate, that later Jerome's followers would have an extreme outcry against another vernacular translation. It would seem unbelievable? To Jerome's followers the Vulgate was viewed as the "real" Bible and they did have an extreme outcry against other vernacular translation attempts.

Other English translations followed after the Vulgate. The 1st English translation of the entire Bible was completed in 1382 under the direction of John Wycliffe. Wycliffe, an Oxford theologian, was protected from harm due to his influence and position. Wycliffe's work was denounced and his translation was condemned. However... Wycliffe's followers were not so lucky, many were: harassed, imprisoned and... burned at the stake by ignorant self-righteous zealots! Because of Wycliffe's controversial work in 1408, a synod was established by clergy, which forbid anyone to translate into the vernacular or read a vernacular translation without prior church approval. "Wycliffe was referred to as the, `great, arch-heretic' who undertook `of a malicious purpose' to translation the Bible into English and `purposely corrupted the holy text.'"

William Tyndale has the distinguished honor to be the first to produce a printed English New Testament. It was the first English translation directly from the Greek. However, the 1408 synod rules still applied and Tyndale had to flee England. Tyndale's work was published in 1526 and copies were smuggled back into England. Tyndale's opponents followed him relentlessly. Tyndale was kidnapped in 1535. He was imprisoned and a year later executed... and his body burned, just to make sure!

Wycliffe, Tyndale and others help bring a growing acceptance of vernacular English translations.
Year 1539- The Great Bible
Year 1560- The Geneva Bible (Favored by the Puritans), (Had roots in Tyndale's work)
Year 1568 - The Bishop's Bible (official Bible of the Church of England) revision of the Great Bible
Year 1604- King James commissions a translation of the Bible
Year 1611- forty-seven leading British scholars translated in seven years the King James Bible.

However the King James Bible was not above criticism! The pilgrims refused to allow the new version on the Mayflower! One of the leading scholars of the day, Hugh Broughton wrote this regarding the KJV: "Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches... The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt"

The King James translators expected such criticisms, which is recorded in the preface. The KJV translators affirm the need for continual revision and admit their work is far from perfect: "Truly, good Christian reader... we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; ... but to make a good one better." The translators continue: "no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." KJV translators acknowledge, "blemishes," even the "meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." Consider the humble beginnings of the King James Version Bible and its received criticism.

Isn't it ironic (again) that for many of today's readers any Bible translation after the KJV is illegitimate and a corruption of the "real" Bible? As this brief historical introduction to vernacular translations has demonstrated; outrage, false accusations, irrational and ungodly behavior is nothing new in the history of new translations. I would hope that fellow believers would mature in their faith by recognizing the foolishness of prior Christian's concerning Bible Translation.

I hope this information would, for serious Bible students, underscore the following:

1.You need to use several good modern English translations to discover where textual variants lie.
2. Learn the limits of a translation and how to properly use a translation.
3. Christians believe in truth and should never shy away from examining new data.
4. An informed believer is far more effective at reaching others than the willfully or slothfully ignorant one.

When it comes to the TNIV; integrity, accuracy and truth count. For Christian groups to make irrational, uninformed and legalistic demands upon other translation committees such as the Committee on Bible Translation, stating to them to not translate the TNIV a specific way is wrong! This is nothing more than pure legalism. Christianity is not a religion of legalism.

So in light of Biblical scholarship and textual criticism that is used to develop a translation, and in light of the history of vernacular translations, how should Christians respond to groups that make false or hateful claims against other translations like the TNIV? I suggest always praying for those who disagree with you; and as the Holy Spirit leads, try and share factual information concerning Bible translation. Always keep in mind, facts are not always received as facts, often they are filtered with emotions and irrational thought. Simply, some people are unwilling to learn, unwilling to change and unwilling to be challenged, it is their way or the highway! This is extremely sad; these believers need prayer because they are supposed to represent our Lord Jesus.

Maybe you have listened to Dr. James Dobson's (psychologist) radio broadcast and its unbalanced and unrelenting bashing of the TNIV. Maybe you have read Wayne Grudem's mantra that the TNIV is "gender neutral!" Maybe you have heard RC Sproul's unbalanced and unrelenting radio broadcast blasting the TNIV as "Anti-Male!" I admit I greatly admire these men and respect them as Christian brothers in the faith. My heart is also very saddened by their blatant hypocrisy and their blindness to the male oriented literary bigotry that they are fighting for. All three of these men have accomplished many good things and have been used by God to impact the world around them. And I thank God for them! Members of the CBT and myself have made numerous attempts to meet with these men regarding the abusive and false accusations and divisiveness that they willingly seek to create within Christianity (They simply will not meet with CBT members, and they are not interested in really resolving the issue!).

The sad truth is this, Dr. Dobson needs to "'Focus' on the Family." He openly admits his ignorance concerning these issues and has been badly informed by trusted colleagues as to the facts concerning the TNIV.

Dr. Wayne Grudem is the general editor of a competing translation (English Standard Version) (his translation seeks $ from NIV and TNIV losses due to media hype). Dr. Grudem has changed his view and position a number of times after being embarrassed and flatly proven wrong before other scholars. I seriously question Dr. Grudem's intellectual and academic integrity; he simply is incapable of being unbiased and honestly looking at the translation and textual issues, when he profits from attacks on the NIV and TNIV.

Also it is sad, but true, RC Sproul is also the general editor of another competing translation (The Reformation Study Bible- a spin off of the ESV).

Many notable Christian leaders have been blinded by their male oriented bigotry and simply accept the statements of these men without "thinking for themselves" and being a REAL Bereans (Acts 17:11).

Friends be a REAL Berean and educate yourself as to what a translation is and what a translation is not. Do not be led with a ring in your nose to follow the most outspoken and accept their bellowing as "gospel truth." It is a bag of false goods friend!

The real truth is the TNIV is probably one of the most accurate and best-rendered English translations you can get. It has used a diverse scholarship and the best source manuscripts available to us currently. It has strived to really bring the original meaning of the source text into the everyday commonly spoken English language; and it does it with "class!" The TNIV is an excellent text for serious Bible study; it is nothing like a paraphrase Bible! The TNIV is a "meaning for meaning" translation! The Word of God is to be meaningful to us as believers; a real translation must be meaning oriented. I hope this is helpful to those who truly are seeking to live their Christian lives as real Bereans (Acts 17:11). The TNIV translation will be an excellent tool in helping you mature in your faith and be an effective witness for the cause of our Lord Jesus.

Contrary to other reviews that have been harsh on this latest translation, I think it's another great attempt at getting close to the true meaning of the inspired scriptures. I know several Greek and Hebrew scholars who have personally studied and worked with the dead sea scrolls, who feel that this is an excellent translation. Let's see these 'evangelicals' actually pick up some Greek text and study it for once. I find it difficult to swallow when people are so harsh to new translations. When the "now authorized" KJV came out, it was met with widespread hatred. In my opinion any attempt to get close to the true meaning is a good one. This specific translation gets close to our modern society in wording which is great, no more antiquated language.

Obviously the best translate of bible as I see. I love it. Easy to understand and beautiful.

this is the hard back book that my church uses. I was really happy to find the same book on amazon. I love that you can find the bible for such a low cost here. It seems so unfair that the average bible is going for 30$ I got 2 for that amount.

Finally someone somewhere realised that the bible speaks to both men and women. Pity it took them so long to realise. The REB and NRSV got that right years ago.
But what about the accuracy? Well, it is somewhat lacking. Compare John 14:8-11 with either the Greek text or a good academic translation (N)RSV. You will see what I mean. Thus it is not surprising that many fundies and other reli right-wingers are switching to the doctored RSV (called the ESV) or to the masculine oriented Holman translation.
This new translation is useful to have next to the academic standard (N)RSV if only to see how the wording of the TNIV has been chosen to suit the tastes of the potential readers.
So why did I give it 5 stars? Simply because even reading a bad translation which is inclusive in its use of language is better than reading one which is masculine-oriented.