In announcing a major revision of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society and Send The Light, or IBS-STL) CEO Keith Danby said the 2002 revision of the translation, Today's New International Version (TINV) was a mistake.
"Some of the criticism was justified," Danby said. "We fell short of the trust that was placed in us and we made some important errors on the way. ... We let down our partners."
"Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community," said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. "So as we launch this new NIV, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV."
"We are correcting the mistakes in the past," Girkins said. "Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board was made in the last 10 days." She said the transparency is part of an effort to overhaul the NIV "in a way that unifies evangelicalism."
Doug Moo, chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation (which is the body responsible for the translation) said the committee has not yet decided how much the 2011 edition will include the gender-inclusive language that roiled critics of the TNIV.
"We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction," Moo said. "All that is back on the table. This has been a time of transition in the in the way the English language has handed gender, and it is in flux and in process as things are changing quickly."
Any thoughts on this?
7 comments:
Just this:
I find it difficult to take seriously the comments of a man named 'Moo'.
It seems to me that he is just trying to milk the situation for all it's worth.
But seriously...
I'm not crazy about all the P.C. stuff taking place in newer translations.
Understandable - yes. Do I like it - no.
I was just made aware on Sunday that the NIV was translated by two atheists.................
Not to say that it should be thrown out all together, but it certainly gives me pause.....
Here's the thing: Shakespeare is kind of hard to understand. It was written in a different time, in a different culture, with some very different words. Now, some people, wanting others to be able to understand and appreciate old Billy, have paraphrased him, rewriting his works in modern English. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this. But do we still credit it to Shakespeare? Do we *quote* it as the words of Shakespeare? No. We call it Cliff's Notes. Cliff's Notes can be a helpful tool in understanding the difficult text, but everyone knows it is not the original.
What the translators of the TNIV have done, is somewhat paraphrased scripture, rewriting it in modern English, just like Cliff's Notes. Is this necessarily wrong? I don't think so. I think it can be a helpful tool in understanding the sometimes difficult text. Where they have gone wrong, is they do not refer to it as such, but instead, refer to it as God's Holy Word. If the original text said "he" or "man," then I want to read that in my Bible. I was taught in the 3rd grade about context, and I'd like to think most of us can figure out by looking at the text, that sometimes the male pronoun refers to all mankind, and other times it simply refers to a male.
I don't care that they translated it that way--just don't pass it off as an accurate translation of God's Word if you're going to toy around with it and insert your own agenda. *coughEugenePetersoncough*
Paula, who told you the NIV was translated by two atheists? There were a ton of people involved and I don't know much about them but several of the names I do recognize and many of them are affiliated with very conservative Christian denominations. The list is here:
http://www.biblica.com/niv/translators/
Thanks for the link Arthur.
I was not very sure as to this persons source.
I will give them the info for sure!
There are two problems I have with the TNIV. First, Zondervan originally planned it as a revision to the NIV, but they promised not to publish it after much controversy about it. Then, they published it anyway not as a revision of the NIV but as a stand alone translation.
Second, while I am not opposed to gender-neutral translations on principle. Practically, I do not see the need. We do use gender-neutral language in our everyday communication, but my question is have we became so accustomed to gender-neutral language that gender-specific language is not understandable warranting a major revision.
I also do not understand all the controversy specifically with the TNIV. Many conservatives sound as if this is the first ever gender-neutral translation. I do not hear these same voices expressing concern over the NRSV or the NLT both are gender-neutral translations.
No matter what the translation, we must be careful that the true MEANING is not tainted, or changed…we cannot add or take away words, lets not forget what it says in the last book of Revelations.
Post a Comment