Rating: 
Summary: oh 'edit' where art thou?
Review: ...I must make everyone aware that all 'study Bible' notes, charts, etc. can be appended to ANY translation. So you can find the 'Life Application' Bible with the NIV, NLT, etc. have the exact same information; it's just that the translations are different. So if you like the way one translation phrases things, you can have your cake & eat it, too.Biblical scholars Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart (these guys wrote How to Read Your Bible for All It's Worth--a good book & must-have for everyone) recommend that readers have 3 translations: one from the 'literal' philosophy of translation, the second from the other 'extreme', 'free' or paraphrastic translation (this is NLT, the Message, TEV or 'Good News' Bible), and last, from the middle group, 'dynamic equivalent' (TNIV, REB). This balances out any weaknesses or tendancies any one translation might have (which could range from weird/out-of-date English wording to too much interpretation to wimpy footnotes--or none at all. Footnotes are not the extras from study Bibles, but references to alternative meanings or text).
Rating:
Summary: what's the big deal?
Review: I don't see the big deal.
If there is a greek word that means to address both men and women, why is it the cardinal sin to translate that word into a word in our language that applies to both men and women?
Now if this Bible took greek words that only applied to males, then turned them into english words that apply to both men and women, then I'd see a reason to make a big deal! BUT THE TNIV DOES NOT DO THIS! IT DOES NOT DO IT! IT DOES NOT DO IT....I'LL SAY IT AGAIN..........IT DOES NOT DO IT!
So why are all the paranoid nuts acting like the TNIV does this? I think they are either misinformed, or just listen to propaganda and are moved by fear.
AGain! If there is a greek word that means both "he or she", is it good to translate that word into an English word that means he or she, or should we translate it into a English word that only translate to "he"?
The people who argue against this translation, act like they are for purity of the word! But if they were really for the purity of the word, they'd be for this translation, because it translates greek "he\she" words into English "he\she" words.
Anyone who wants to translate a greek word that means both he or she, anyone who wants to translate such a word into the English language that only means "he" is actually perverting the word of God, and is translatig based on bias!
Rating: 
Summary: Troubling...
Review: I have studied Koine (or Biblical) Greek for nearly a year now and have seen the importance of using what God has given us when it comes to the Bible. In my opinion, Christians are far too lax about translation accuracy. The only thing people are worried about is 'updating' the Bible to fit the culture. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with updating word usage--- I see everything wrong with trying to make the Bible say something it does not actually say. Greek is an extremely specific language!!! There is just no way around that. Therefore, to suggest that you can translate the same word as 'man' and then as a more 'gender neutral' term is absolutely ludicrous because Greek simply does not work that way-- nouns can only be masculine, feminine or neuter and if you translate a masculine/feminine noun as neuter simply to make it 'work' in a gender neutral Bible, you are not only losing much of God's intended meaning, you are also doing poor scholarly work. Personally, I think it's just plain dumb to suggest that because the nouns in the Bible are predominantly male we need to change that to keep from offending anyone. Good grief.. just get over it and read with the idea of 'humankind' as understood. Besides, many other things in our society are similar, such as calling boats and such 'she'. Good grief, do we need to start calling all of them 'it's' too? There is no need or excuse to sacrifice Biblical accuracy for personal desires. That is wrong, unbiblical and it shows how far the Church has sunk into our culture. By the way... I am a WOMAN who has no issue with seeing 'man' throughout the Bible.
Rating:
Summary: it's an improvement :)
Review: I realize that there are people opposed to this revision, but I feel that their reasons are not very well informed. First, there is no such thing as a 5th grade level translation (How many 5th graders even know Koine?). Don't put down all of the hard work done by this committee with insults. Neither should the use of new Christian imagery be so condescending. Second, WHERE IS YOUR LOVE? The NIV and TNIV are pretty different. 7% of text change is a lot, and here's a reason why: the TNIV is based on the latest (4th) edition of the UBS (United Bible Society's New Testament Greek Bible). This is the base text translators use everywhere; edited by translators for translators. The NIV's Greek text was its own version. (Perhaps this is where the 'lack of scholarship' comment comes from?) The NRSV is pretty good, but very literal. It is NOT the 'scholar's edition.' Scholars, and theologians to some degree, use Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, and Syriac texts--not English. (I won't explain why the list here--it's complicated) Ministers OUGHT NOT stick to one translation. The TNIV is intended for any Christian, not just new ones. As for the allegation (and I paraphrase) of 'mistranslates for the purpose of being more sensitive to today's language usage,' how low can you go? Minor revisions do not merit a new name. This is not simply 'substituting words.' Every reprint of any Bible has minor revisions, but most people don't notice them. Everyday scholars discover a new connection and legitimate new text to cross-reference. Sometimes the more accurate translation is found later. (If you have not made a single mistake in your life, raise your hand) If your eternal life depended on it (God, please have mercy on us!), would you rather be accurate or stick to what you know? Have some respect for the 'gray hairs' and effort put into this! I gather that most people responding are not of the younger generation. I am. I'm only twenty, and I know that there are people who take offense to saying 'a man' when that could mean anyone, or 'brothers'--as if there are no sisters. Today students are taught in English classes to NEVER use 'mankind' or 'he' (by itself throughout any writing) at all. It must be 'humankind' and 'he or she.' Sorry Neil Armstrong, your famous phrase is politically incorrect. Can he be quoted? Or will it end up as 'That's one small step for [a hu]man, and one giant leap for [hu]mankind.'? Perhaps in reprints, the committee with vary their pronoun usage (alternating he & she is, thankfully, still politically acceptable), but you know we're all sometimes guilty of reading parts and not wholes of the Bible. :) Translating requires that we get meaning across. Which means there are idioms (words put together that make no sense translated literally) and different meanings for the same word in different contexts. Since English doesn't have a word that can mean flesh/physical body/human being/earthly/worldly/sinful or human nature in different contexts (and NEVER all at once) and carries good, bad, or neutral connotations (implied meanings & feelings) with it, we HAVE TO be dynamic at least some of the time. Even the NRSV uses 'sinful nature' in particular verses--but whose to say which single meaning is The Literal One? Greek has many fun grammatical nuances that are difficult to get across to English. Some of those sentence constructions are intended to let a reader know it's a different kind of verb. Other times the weird phrases are theologically important or mean something different from the usual English. Then there's the reverse problem of English words with their own baggage.... TNIV is not intended to make beautiful Shakespearean phrases out of every verse, and sometimes they are guilty of sticking with the familiar or simplest translation. Can you forgive them? :) When you learn and grow, your understanding of the world must, by default, change, otherwise, you really haven't done either. It won't be easy, but who ever said our paths would be paved in gold? ('Jesus' would be the WRONG answer here). ^_^ <3 love ya lots,
jinny
1 John 3:18 --(my version) Tevkia, we do not love in words or by tongue, but in action and in truth. (Other versions are pretty, too--and actually more accurate grammatically--not to mention FULLY translated :), but this has proven true. ^_^)
Rating: 
Summary: One step forward, one step back
Review: So granted, the gender-inclusive language is the first point of controversy, making the text clumsy at points and misleading at others (see the controversy over "aner" translated as "human"). Passages like Hebrews 2:6 are especially worrisome, where they meddle with a Christological passage by taking out the double meaning of "son of man." Such is the fruit of the inclusive agenda. But let's give credit where credit is due. Many passages are clarified, or updated from the outdated language of the TNIV. One of my favorites is Matt. 18:4: "Whoever takes a humble place - becoming like this child - is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." The NIV says, "Whoever humbles himself like this child," which has helped propogate the very unbiblical idea of coming to God with a "child-like" (read, unintellectual) faith. I have yet to decide whether updating a mostly-current NIV is worth the cost.
Rating:
Summary: Troubling...
Review: The NIV was a giant step backwards in bible translation. Made to appease the sects whose members could not cope with the academic standard translations RSV/NRSV. This step backwards meant that no inclusive language was used. The TNIV does use inclusive language. I don't really think that this will lead to wider acceptance in mainline protestant churches. In fact, without the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books its use is limited anyway (Episcopalian/Anglican and Lutheran churches require these extra books).
The NT strays in many cases too far from the accepted Greek texts (UBS4/NA27), probably to suit the tastes of those translating it. The OT translators will probably have trouble reading the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 and have to turn to the LXX. But this is the case with all translators right of centre. Readers know to substitute virgin with young woman to get the Hebrew reading.
The TNIV has at the moment more curiosity value than usefulness as a study/devotional tool. I give it 4 stars for the inclusive language and thus the recognition that any translation has to reflect the era in which it is made. The REB en the NRSV got there first and of those two, the former was actaully commissioned by churches and not groups outside the established churches who thought they knew better.
Rating: 
Summary: Critics of the TNIV are "Much Ado about Nothing"
Review: The TNIV has come under much criticism from the evangelical world, including a boycott by the Southern Baptist Convention and attempts to have the translation removed from Christian book stores. This ire is "much ado about nothing" and indeed reflects the desperation of those who would resort to censorship in their efforts to promote their viewpoint. What is the issue? Simply that the TNIV uses what is called "gender neutral language," which is the use of more inclusive language when the original language of Scripture calls for this. For example, in Matthew 4:4, according to the NIV, Jesus said: "Man does not live on bread alone..." Now when Jesus was making the point that spiritual sustenance from God's Word is needed even more than physical sustenance, obviously He wasn't implying that only men--and not women--have need of God's Word. In the patriarchal culture of Christ's time here on earth, in which women were regarded as property (though, significantly, not by Jesus), people would use masculine words when referring to all of humankind. Today, in our society which is unevenly making progress towards a conscious equality of all humanity, using a word such as "man" or "mankind" can imply that only males and not females are in mind. Exclusive application to men was not Jesus' intent in this verse--He was just using the idiom of the day. Well, as the preface to the TNIV says, the first priority of translators is "faithfulness to the meaning of the biblical writers" and therefore "the work of translating the Bible is never finally finished" due to the continual changing of idiom and meaning in any language. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy to the meaning of Jesus' words, the TNIV translates Matthew 4:4 as, "People do not live on bread alone..." In similar fashion, the TNIV will translate a verse such as Romans 12:1 as "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers." This is the extent of the "liberal" changes found in the TNIV which are being so vehemently decried. The TNIV does NOT call God "mother," as some would imply (though the Bible includes numerous mothering images for God: Isaiah 66:13, Matthew 23:37-38, etc.) I for one am thankful for translations such as the TNIV and organizations such as Christians for Biblical Equality which seek to make the full meaning of God's Word available in contemporary language and understanding. "Liberalism" in an area is not a wrong when the conservatives are defending something that God Himself is not even defending. Perhaps critics of the TNIV ought to check to see if they are fighting on the correct front.
Rating:
Summary: Good Flow / Good Updates
Review: There are many versions of the Bible that are available. If you have certain things that you look for in a Bible, this version may or may not fit your tastes. For me, this is a good update to the NIV, which makes it a bit closer to the NRSV, but with NIV flavor. As this is only the New Testament, I can only say that I have enojoyed the updates made to the New Testament. As for those who have some big issues with the TNIV, just choose another version. Joseph Dworak
Rating:
Summary: Overall, a great read, but I'm a little confused...
Review: This Bible is a good reading Bible. Some of it's renderings are also progressive and innovative. Still, I'm confused by the fact that the TNIV at times retains unhelpful renderings, some of which are quite dated. First, the good stuff. Too many good changes to list, but I'll give a few. Romans 12:1 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God- this is your proper worship as rational beings." Though not technically literal, the idea of our service as rational- logical- is definitely in the Greek and missing in most modern translations (most have "your spiritual worship"). 1 Corinthians 6:9 changed the confusing "homosexual offenders" in the NIV to "practicing homosexuals," which is clearer and accurate. The first part of Romans 8 is masterful. Genitives are handled well. 1 John 2:15b, "If you love the world, love for the Father is not in you." Renderings found in most versions are unclear as to whether it is referring to God's love for us or our love for Him. "Spiritual songs" is now "songs of the Spirit," which is interesting, though interpretive. One of the problems in any dynamic rendering is that of excluding possible interpretive options that exist in the original. Any translator is also an interpretor; it's the nature of the beast and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that any translation is untainted by human assumptions or dogmas. I don't agree with the TNIV forcing trinitarian thinking into verses with other possible- and legitimate- options. (See Romans 9:5 and Phillipians 2:6 for examples.) Still, in order to use modern translations I must live with that fact. "Sinful nature" is also a forced interpretation, but they still offer a footnote with "flesh." On the negative side, the NIV translators said years ago that they would change the Lord's Prayer in future revisions. However, the TNIV retains the original Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6,including the "hallowed" in verse 9 and the awkward and totally non-dynamic verse 13: "And lead us not into temptation..." What's up with that? (On this verse, see the NLT for clarity.) The TNIV promoters, in their ads, claim that the TNIV is the translation for the next generation, that it speaks to us today, etc., yet it retained some language that no one uses anymore. Note to translators: Lead us not into antiquated phrasing. In Romans 13:13, the TNIV retains "debauchery," a perfectly fine but unused word, rather than updating to the useful phrase "sexual promiscuity" found in many new translations. In the current generation, "sober" means "not drunk," and little more, so the phrases "of sober mind" and "sober judgement" will be misunderstood or lost to the reader. The TNIV also kept "temperate." Why? Does anyone use that word anymore? It certainly is not a useful or dynamic word. Acts 3:20 is worded in a way that people would never speak: "and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you- even Jesus." (The obscure use of the words "even"- as an identifier- and "might"-where "could" or "should" would be used in a real conversation- drives me nuts.) Oh well... I'm done now. Sometimes the translators seem uncertain as to when to be dynamic and when to be literal. In Romans 8:9a they try to be both, which confuses me: "You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature [dynamic], but are in the Spirit [literal]." Compare this with the NIV rendering and share in my confusion. Anyway, I hate to criticize any work that tries to make the Bible clearer using modern words, paragraph structure and sentence structure. The strength of the NIV was its great word flow and modernity, a theme the TNIV generally sticks with. This work is also not plaqued by the incessant use of run-on sentences found in many translations. The TNIV is very readable. I think it still needs more work. Most of the changes, including the gender related ones, are superb. I look forward to the complete Bible in TNIV.
Rating:
Summary: Helpful update to the NIV
Review: This revision of the NIV is helpful and makes the world's most popular English translation more contemporary, easier to read and usually, more accurate. It is written in the language most people speak, though at times this may not be the language we are used to reading. Some uses of plurals sound correct when spoken, but may at first appear a little odd when you read them. However, it is most likely that eventually this will seem normal in print as well. To assist us in understanding the Bible, it is helpful to have translations like the TNIV which focus on getting the meaning across and also translations like the NASB which focus more on following the form of the original language. I am eagerly awaiting the Old Testament update of the NIV. If it is as good as the New Testament part, this may well become the standard English bible for the first part of the 21st Century. For an understanding of translating the bible into contemporary English, and especially the philosophy of the NIV and TNIV translators, I recommend The Challenge of Bible Translation, edited by Strauss, Voth and Scorgie.
| 
