non-Zondervan study Bibles?

Bryan · 02-20-2002, 06:50 PM

I agree. And this is much different from The Message. As I said in another post only 7% of the TNIV has changed from the NIV. I don't see anything wrong with this translation. Anybody who does is far to skeptical and afraid of change. The TNIV doesn't change the meaning of the texts and is in fact more precise about the translation in some areas than the NIV was.

ThePlaidRanger · 02-20-2002, 06:53 PM

The problem is this supposition that God had no good reason for using masculine pronouns/tense. In the best possible world, we all would be able to read Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. Since, however, we can't (at least not most of us

) we must have the Word translated for us, and because it is the holy, infallible Word of God, it is vital that it be rendered as accurately as possible. For example, the NIV is okay for kids and those who can't read so well, but for those who can, the NASB is much better (I was 12 when I got my LAB), as it is more accurate. When we take it upon ourselves to correct the original text, we run the risk of distorting the Word. I agree that in many of the passages the substitution of "human" for "man" may make the text easier to understand, but the alteration of the bible is an area which we should not explore for any reason. (I have many of the same problems with the use of any of the paraphrases (Living Bible, The Message, NLT?) as a sole reference.)

And I agree that Zondervan puts out many fine bibles. I have used the Life Application Bible for 4 years now and have found it quite useful. However, as Guy said, I do not want to be lending my support to a company that supports alteration of the Word of God.

Bryan · 02-20-2002, 06:57 PM

they are not altering the Word of God. They are matching the translation to the continuing evolution of the English language. Until the English language ceases to evolve we will have new translations. In many cases the changes reflect a better understanding of the Greek/Hebrew. For deep indepth study of the Word I would recommend the NASB, but for a new Christian or a youngster I would recommend the TNIV.

ThePlaidRanger · 02-20-2002, 06:58 PM

Quote:

SnapCase said:

I don't see how this is any different from "The Message" or any other paraphrase or dynamic translation.

In that it is not presented as a such, while The Message is.

SnapCase · 02-20-2002, 07:06 PM

I'm not seeing how they are "altering" God's word when they have reasonable support for why they changed certain passages. Have you looked at the website and seen why they changed them? I think they give some valid reasons.

So are you saying you have a problem with "Brothers" being translated into "Brothers and sisters"??

ThePlaidRanger · 02-20-2002, 07:15 PM

As I said, I do not think that there is insufficient reason for altering some of the passages. However, I think that it sets a poor precedent. Also, it seems that these passages are being changed as much for political correctness as accuracy. (For the record, most of these passages are accurate either way when compared to rules for written English, they are only confusing to any degree in idiomatic English - the male pronoun IS still the correct pronoun when gender is unknown) It is also doubtful that any reader - especially a born-again Christian would think, for example, that only men can distort the Gospel (Joyce Meyers, anyone?).

SnapCase · 02-20-2002, 07:33 PM

I'm taking a conservative stance on this and saying that the TNIV is dangerous. It may open up doors to worse things later down the road.

At the same time however, I'm not seeing a huge reason to totally ban it. I think there are bigger differences between the NIV and the KJV that we don't even talk about.

While I think it has a definite pro's, it also has it's cons.

Bryan · 02-20-2002, 07:37 PM

What I don't understand is that people said the same thing about the KJV and the ESV when they were published. But yet everybody today (except for a few Looneys) has accepted those along with the NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.

ThePlaidRanger · 02-20-2002, 07:55 PM

Actually, there are a few loonies among the KJV supporters too

(KJV only people) but it was translated with the goal of having an accurate, readable bible in the common language. The NIV is already readable and in the common language, and as for accurate, I'm no expert in ancient languages, so I'll leave that up to the experts. The goal here seems to be to dumb it down, and to conform to the standard of political correctness while doing so, with enhanced accuracy the excuse. There is no reason to change these passages.

Bryan · 02-20-2002, 08:47 PM

The NIV is readable in the language of the 1970s

Cadence · 02-20-2002, 08:53 PM

GO with the Spirit-filled Life Bible (NKJV). It's by Nelson. The Chief Editor is Jack W. Hayford.

02-20-2002, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bryan
The NIV is readable in the language of the 1970s

Discounting especially obscure slang, which is not used in the NIV, the English of the 1970's is not substantially different in any way from modern English - i.e I can read a book written in the 1970's and have no problem understanding what the author is saying. The only major changes in the English language since then are:

A: "Verbage"
I've taken the term from Calvin and Hobbes, because it accurately describes the process. A noun, such as access, is used as a verb - i.e.
I have access
v.
I will access.

B: Gender-neutral pronouns
This term is misleading, because the English language is sadly lacking in gender-neutral pronouns, and can become confusing when gender-neutral pronouns are substituted for the neutral "he". The grammatically correct form is to use the generic "He" when referring to a specific person of unknown gender, and other such instances. The politically correct form is to toss in whichever pronoun catches the writer/translator's fancy without regard to producing a coherent passage.

The first change has no effect on the translation of the NIV, just as the word video has no effect on the translation. The second only has an effect if the translators value being politically correct over being grammaticaly correct.

ThePlaidRanger · 02-20-2002, 09:43 PM

Sorry, that last one was me, I forgot to log in. How about we move the TNIV discussion to Guy's TNIV thread and keep this one on study bibles. Oh, and in response to Luke's (much) earlier question, I'm looking for an in-depth study bible with theologically correct notes (duh). I'm Calvinist and in general agreement with the NCT views on most things, and I'm not looking for a gimmick bible (Worship Bible, African-American Study Bible, Left-handed Red-haired Banjo Playing Skateboarder's Bible

)

Cadence · 02-20-2002, 09:49 PM

The one I mentioned has great notes. It's sure to cover most of the major views at most points of the Bible. Very good stuff.

Chrysostom · 02-20-2002, 10:08 PM

[Bryan] everybody today (except for a few Looneys) has accepted those along with the NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.

[Me] Say that again?