NEW LEAVEN

The ESV cool-aid is stronger than many think.

Hi TC, thanks for noticing my list. I was careful to stress that it was my list, and I think all the discussion going on over which translation is the best one has a lot to do with preference.

The TNIV didn’t make the list because I’m not that familiar with it yet. I also think it’s important to note the difference between being sensitive to gender issues and being inclusive. I don’t mind inclusive when it’s done right. NRSV has usually done it best in my opinion.

Inclusive, to me, means translating neutrally or inclusively when it’s clear that the intended audience was mixed. It’s a hard call to make sometimes. I think 1 Thess 4:1-6 was directed to men (though the point is good for women, too). That makes it more difficult when the application of the text should be inclusive, but the language is not.

Is it accurate to translate a patriachal ancient text to conform with modern sensibilities to avoid offending someone? That’s what I think the TNIV has done.

The jury’s still out for me on the TNIV, but I’m open to being convinced of its merits. Maybe it will rise into the top 10 by the next edition.

I think it’s great that so many translation options are out there. It’s strange to see how each one has kind of developed a fanatical following in various circles. I’m not dogmatic about using the ESV and I don’t remember drinking any kool-aid . . .

I read the post. He has gender issues with the TNIV but not with the NLT or the NRSV? And ‘accurate’ seems to be mostly reserved for the few.

A translation that’s barley comprehendible listed for #4 and an odd reason for disliking the Contemporary English Version, its understandable.

His closing statement, “based entirely on how close all the translations are to the original autographs”, should also cancel out #4.

Wow

Bryon:

I think you missed the irony in my closing statement. I’ll let you in on a secret. There are no “original autographs.” And the KJV got the #4 spot based on its status as the classic English bible. A lot of people still like it. Also, there are differences of approach and quality even among gender-inclusive translations. That’s why the NLT and NRSV got on the list and TNIV didn’t. My previous comment (still awaiting moderation by TC) explained what I think the difference is.

When reading my post, take note of the fact that I stress the reasons one person doesn’t like a translation might be exactly why someone else does like it. Case in point my “odd reason for disliking” the CEV is the 4th grade target reading level. If that helps some people understand the Bible better, that’s great, but I don’t like that or need it.

And “accurate” was reserved for the translations where I know how they stack up against the original languages.

Doug Mangum,
Someone spiked your soda.

TC, I agree. But he seems like a fun guy.

Fair enough.

By the way, the more I read the TNIV and NLT the more I like them. It really keeps getting even better with both of them.

TC, you’ve convinced me that I need to look closer at my reasoning for including the NLT and NRSV versus excluding the TNIV. As I commented on my original post, I’ll need to take some time to look into the issue further. I need to look at their translation philosophies and more examples in more detail to find an example where the NRSV may have handled the gender thing better than TNIV, for example. After that, I’ll either revise my ranking or try to give you a better justification. I want to be fair and consistent, so I’ll give the TNIV another shot. I may start by reading more of your posts and reading the TNIV Truth blog more.

on those first three my tag lines would be

ESV – not readable, inaccurate
NASB – very inaccurate
NLT – very readable, accurate.

Mike,
Why very inaccurate for the NASB?

The NET Bible also uses inclusive language.

And the TNIV was more “cautious” in its use of inclusive language than the NLT1. I haven’t made the comparison with the NLTse.

And the TNIV is definitely more conservative in its use of inclusive language than the NRSV. Look for instance at Proverbs, which was written for instruction to young men. In Proverbs 1:8 and throughout the rest of the book, the NRSV uses “child” whereas the TNIV uses “son.”

Seems to me that Doug has (perhaps unknowingly) bought into the false anti-TNIV rhetoric.

Rick,
I’m planning to give the TNIV another look and explore the gender language issue more extensively. Thanks for the Proverbs example. I’m definitely open to changing my mind about the TNIV if it turns out that I bought into a caricature of what the version was really like.

The issue of adoption of sons is another (Rom 8:15; Eph 1:5; Gal 4:5-6).

And it is interesting that Luther’s Bible had the Kindschaft (adoption of children.) The reformation is founded on that translation.

Please do it Doug for the sake of all of us!!!
Jeff

The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture.

I have read that it refers to when a childless couple want to adopt a male heir. I have also read that it refers to a coming of age ceremony for a biological child. So, clearly there are two competing interpretations. Does our salvation depend on which one is correct?

In the KJV, the phrase is 3 times translated as “adoption” once as “adoption of children” and once as “adoption of sons.” So the concern over keeping the male gender in view is recent.

Within an egalitarian paradigm where women had the same rights and privileges as men, it wouldn’t really matter. But clearly, if women cannot consider themselvs included in words addressed to males, this becomes problematic. I think it is always wise to look at the Tyndale/KJV tradition and Luther and ask what is important to salvation.

Personally, I am completely open to however this phrase is translated. What sticks for me is the minister who says, “I could never preach the gospel from a Bible that does not use the phrase adoption to sonship.” Is he so above Luther?

I don’t know what the anti-TNIV rhetoric is, but I don’t think that there’s been any translation of the Bible that I’ve been less interested in (at least among translations that seem to be quite popular).

If Paul is drawing from his Greco-Roman culture, then we should let “adoption of sons” stand.

As I said, if you are egalitarian then “adoption of sons” is find. If complementarian, then it all becomes problematic. Does a woman have full rights of inheritance, clearly not.

I meant to ask you: What is it about Luther and his take on translation that you like so much?

The phrase “sons of God,” in German, of course, does not occur in that Bible. Anthropos is translated Mensch and not Mann, and so on.

Otherwise, it is well done, and I spent a summer living in Germany with the family of a Pentecostal pastor so it brings back good memories. I heard a lot of the German Bible that summer.

>>Please do it Doug for the sake of all of us!!!<<<

Because we have all bought into the gender thing, right, Jeff?

I just know you’re very excited for him to take the TNIV more seriously, as we all should. Then the world would be a better place. Just giving you a hard time.
Jeff

TC, I consider myself the second coming of Luther.

I’ve thought that about you as well.

Nick, search for TNIV on google. You will find numerous hit pieces.

Give it a shot. I was, until a few months ago, convinced that the TNIV was from the pit of hell. I had never read it, mind you, but that’s what the word was from several respected folks in the Christian community.

Then I purchased one. Wow!

Check out Wayne Leman’s excellent collection of resources at his TNIV Links page.

TC: My reason would be that I have enough Bibles and I don’t particularly see a need to add one more to the mix.

Stan: I’m sure it’s a fine translation, and I do like the NIV, but I’m just not curious enough to check it out.

Nick, my advice would be to write Santa a letter and ask for one. If you’re good and he brings you one you would almost have to check it out. Then you would be all the better for it.

Nick you don’t know what you’ve gotten yourself into.
Jeff

Here’s my list in order.

NT
Nestle-Aland
ESV

OT
Gottingen LXX
Biblia Hebraica Kittel (or stuttgartensia)
NIV