Customer Reviews

TNIV Thinline Bible XL: Larger Print Edition (Bible Tniv)

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

 

 

The NIV was the translation of the Holy Bible that I was able to truly read and understand as a teen and young adult. This "inclusive language" T-NIV only makes the NIV even better; this is not a "liberal" or "progressive" translation in the ways that some very conservative Christians have painted it.

I do agree with the second review that the print quality leaves something to be desired. I see the same "bleed through" from using very thin paper that makes it lesss easy to read, which is why someone wants a large-print Bible. I cannot recommend this edition.

I just received this black leather version of this Bible in the mail yesterday. All I have to say is this version is awesome. The leather cover is very flexible and the pages have a shiny silver trim (although I prefer gold trim but silver is still good). The page font size is 9.8 and the quality of the binding and book is excellent. The words of Jesus are in red and there is a concordance. I would highly recommend this TNIV version of the Bible to everyone. The ISBN number is 031093494X.

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.

As the years go by, the quality of the bibles and books published by Zondervan decreases. It seems that large profits, boosted by the use of printers in "cheap" countries is what it is about. This book is far from well bound and the thin paper is of such a poor quality. The so-called larger type is actually the normal size for a bible of similar dimensions in many European countries. Maybe Zondervan should let Broadman and Holman look after the printing and binding: B&H produce better quality bibles with larger print (and a larger page size) on better quality thin paper for a price which is actually under than that of Zondervan for a similar product.

I sincerely hope that another company will start publishing TNIV bibles. Until then, readers of this translation have no option other than to boost the profits of Zondervan by purchasing an inferior product.

This translation brings the NIV into the 21st century but the NRSV is still the translation of choice in the majority of seminaries and churches. The TNIV is a good reserve version for those who prefer a less stringent approach to translation.

The NIV was not updated for decades. This is the first update but an unpopular one due to the outspokeness of certain Evangelical leaders against it. The controversial aspect of this translation centered around the "gender-neutralization" of masculine nouns and pronouns (i.e. changing "man" to "person").

The reason for this change centered on the fact that certain words in Greek and Hebrew could refer to humans in general as opposed to men alone, even if the word was masculine. A similar example in English would be "mankind." Translators felt a careful change in a neutral direction would make the translation more accurate and avoid misunderstanding.

Overall, the vast majority of changes were accurate but a few were not. One of the often noted mistakes includes changing "our earthly Fathers disciplined us" to "our earthly parents disciplined us as they thought best" in Hebrews. This obscured the comparison the author was trying to make between human fathers and our heavenly Father. Another example includes changing "what is the Son of Man that you care for him" in the Psalms to "what is humanity that you care for them" which obscures the Messianic significance given to the passage in Hebrews.

The upsides to this translation include a more accurate/updated rendering from Hebrew and Greek in other areas. To use a crude example, I remember reading a passage in the Prophets where the NIV said: "you turn aside to every man." The TNIV renders it more literally to say: "you make your legs wide open." This might offend a Victorian reader but accurately coveys the shock intended by the Hebrew prophet.

Overall, I thought this was a great translation and update to the NIV. It had a few mistakes that could have been corrected. It is too bad people latched on these mistakes and demonized this update or they could have been corrected. There are many Christian bookstores that refuse to even carry it anymore.

I love the TNIV version but not this particular edition. The pages were terribly thin with very noticable bleed-through from the opposite page. The words of Christ are supposed to be in red but are actually a faded pink on most pages. All this makes it very difficult to read, which of course defeats the purpose of buying a larger print Bible. I'm really disappointed that Zondervan would release such a poor quality Bible.

Ok, but ad should have shown an image of an inside page. This item described as a large print bible, but font does not look like large print.