Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Translators: TNIV was a mistake
Translators of the controversial, gender-neutral Today’s New International Version are now saying they made a mistake, reports Christianity Today. Biblica CEO Keith Danby said,
Some of the criticism was justified. 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.
The president of Zondervan, Maureen “Moe” Girkins, said Zondervan will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV:
“We are correcting the mistakes in the past. Being as transparent as possible is part of that. This decision was made by the board was made in the last 10 days.”
In an interview with USA Today, Girkins added:
“The T-NIV is very divisive. It’s not a unifying translation. And it was poorly handled in the marketplace. We need to undo the damage.”
Back in 2002, when the TNIV first came out, WORLD Magazine’s Susan Olasky wrote a cover story on the translation. And in 2005, WORLD followed up with an analysis of the TNIV by Bible scholar Wayne Grudem.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Initially we quoted above from a post that appeared on Christianity Today’s blog that the writer later had to adjust a bit. With CT, we apologize for that misleading detail. The main point of the several stories, however, remains fully accurate. See WORLD’s coverage in next week’s magazine for a fuller report.
back to top52 Comments to “Translators: TNIV was a mistake”
Yes I suppose it was a mistake to try and hide the sexism in the Bible …
Report comment to moderator
It’s a mistake to try to hide anything in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes, marketing decisions have unintended consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Well, duh.
“Mainstream prestige culture finds certain patterns of thought politically incorrect. It is at war with the word of God. And so the integrity of the word of God is at stake. The TNIV fails at crucial points to maintain that integrity. The rejection of the TNIV is important for the spiritual health of the people of God.”
Vern Poythress
http://www.keptthefaith.org/
Report comment to moderator
Let’s commend them for doing the right thing. They admit to their mistake and have said so, and are correcting it. The SPIN- at # 1 must be recognized as coming from one who knows nothing about the word of God. Let’s pray that he he has a life changing encounter with the with the One who loves him with a sacrificial love.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
#2
It is a mistake to try to hide anything in the Bible. Everything that’s there is there for a purpose, and we’ll loose the real long-term purpose if we try to sanitize it for today’s standards. The Bible has endured because it contains God’s inspired message to humanity. We’ve become really arrogant if we think we can improve on that.
Report comment to moderator
Wait a minute:
Was it a mistake because it was divisive? Because it didn’t sell? Because it didn’t meet expectations?
Or . . .
Because it was a bad translation?
Was it marketing or message that was the problem?
Report comment to moderator
Metanoia –
You hit it – bad translation – they were called on it… I remember when it came out, there was/has been lots of discussion over their false translation. They thought it would sell and it obviously hit a THUD.
Report comment to moderator
That’s what Nixon said. Did Nixon say, “I’m sorry. I deceived you. Please forgive me.”? Nope. Is Zondervan apologizing for emasculating scripture? Smells like a face-saving, non-apology, a la Nixon.
Report comment to moderator
And hopefully the next to go will be all the special interest Bibles: The Teen Bible, Biker Bible, Student Bible, etc. The Word of God is for every man woman and child, so there is no need to make a Bible that points out specific verse for whatever special interest the person has.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I think Meta’s point is that while TNIV is indeed a poor translation, its publishers haven’t exactly said that. In the snippets above, all they’ve really said is that “some” of the criticism was justified, that some mistakes need correcting, and that TNIV was divisive. Which criticism of the TNIV do they consider correct, and which do they not? What “mistakes” were made, and why? In what ways was it divisive and non-unifying?
Somebody’s got a lot more ’splaining to do.
Report comment to moderator
God made the Bible a model of mix and match, fix and patch. He inspired His writers and editors to lead by example, and then sent us Jacques Derrida to clear up any confusion and dispel the mystery. The liberty of the Gospel smiles upon all manner of engagement, from Thos. Jefferson’s scissors to TNIV’s gender neutrality.
The good book is in the public domain. God did not lobby Sen. Mary Landrieu for an extra 3,000 years when she gave Disney another 100.
There’s nothing wrong with adapting and changing the meanings of the literary and artistic traditions that are handed down to us, or that we rediscover among things that are forgotten. In fact, it’s really slovenly not to mess with old texts. There’s nothing sacrosanct about the obsolete patter and prejudices of audiences in the past. You’d be offended if people spoke to each other in front of you in a language you didn’t know, and you should feel cheated if some director put on The Magic Flute without any witty apologies for the awful gynophobia in Mozart’s libretto.
We don’t have to take the sexism and patriarchy no more.
Report comment to moderator
As far as I can surmise, they said that they made amistake. They are removing it from the market or correcting it. Is there a need to jump all over them? God’s will be done on earth as in heaven.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Nice try SCROOP!
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
RR –
I understood what Metanoia posted. I doubt Zondervan is going to outline all the mistakes they made.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Roger.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno: I appreciate your graciousness to Zondervan but their action begs the question.
Was it a marketing mistake, or was it a bad translation? By their own admission:
“ . . . And it was poorly handled in the marketplace. We need to undo the damage.”
Sounds to me like they’re saying they will regroup and come back to the market at a later date when it might be more plausible for sales.
I’m with RR on this one:
Somebody’s got a lot more ’splaining to do.
Report comment to moderator
#9, CCC, you are misremembering things. Nixon clearly admitted that he “let his country down.”
I agree with him.
However, he also served his country well at many constructive levels and that is clear to objective historians. I think that Bill Clinton let his cournty down a lot more irresponsibly and destructively that Nixon did, and Clinton has made a career out of not apologizing. In fact, Clinton smeared and attaqck Ken Starr at every turn and Starr was just doing his job (and doing it well too).
Another difference is that the Republicans in congress also were decent enough to hold Nixon responsible. Clinnton, on the other hand, behaved worse in my view, and was fully supported aqnd propped up by Democrats who refused to hold him accountable.
That’s the difference.
Report comment to moderator
“The T-NIV is very divisive. It’s not a unifying translation.” Is the purpose of a translation of the Word of God to be unifying? Does unity trump truth in matters of faithfully translating Scripture? Compare Mt. 10:34 (”Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”). So yes, they are to be commended for admitting a mistake; however, at least one articulated basis for their thinking it was a mistake leaves one scratching one’s head.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop – you and Thomas Bowdler appear to be kindred spirits.
To bowdlerize: to expurgate (a written work) by removing or modifying passages considered objectionable.
Report comment to moderator
I for one pray that they correct those things that offend, and produce the Word in an accurate a manner, in line with their dynamic equivalency method of translation. Zondervan has a long history of serving the body of Christ, and I confess that I have been greatly blessed by their efforts.
Do I like or care for the TNIV? No. However, I did buy one of their bibles, called the “All The Books Of The Bible” edition. In this bible, there are no chapter and verse headings. It reads like a novel, without the man made interuptions of chapter and verse. The books are also arranged in a more logical manner. It is my prayer that other translation teams will follow their example.
I will always hold to the old cliche: “Which translation is the best?” Well, “It’s the one that you will read”. I would modify that that answer to be, “It’s the one that you will read that is the most literal”. Myself, I turn to 6 primary translations, with about 5 more for difficult passages.
Just to make sure that I am clear on one thing though: gender nuetral translations are generally politically driven, and should be avoided. However, there ARE many gender references in the Word that are to be taken as both male and female. How do we know the difference? IT’S CALLED BIBLE STUDY.
Report comment to moderator
Åmen for the Bible study !
.
.
. . †
Report comment to moderator
The Bible is over-rated
Report comment to moderator
Gee, that was an intelligent comment.
Report comment to moderator
SPIN: Why of course, thats why it is still at the top of the best seller list year after year .
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
The Bible is under-read.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno: So what is the most definitive text of your Holy Book? Who, exactly, wrote each of the chapters, who compiled it and when did they do it?
Unless you can provide clear answers to those questions, you have absolutely no justification for attacking anyone else’s version.
BrotherDan: I for one pray that they correct those things that offend.
Good grief, we certainly wouldn’t want your god to actually offend anyone, would we.
I am curious, though. Of the 6 (or 11) different compilations/translations/versions that you use, which one has the fewest “offensive” passages?
And, for anyone who contends that this is supposed to be a “Christian Nation”, which version do you suggest that our legislators use and why do you contend that it is “The Bible”?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – 27
Arcadia you don’t believe the Bible, but yet you want to know information that is available on line IF you are truly interested. Would it make a difference in why you don’t believe if you had this info, or is this just something to argue about?
I have written endless posts regarding the time-line of the Bible, those who were inspired by the HOLY Spirit to write – and how the canon was compiled – have you forgotten all those posts?
Report comment to moderator
27. Arcadia said “Unless you can provide clear answers to those questions, you have absolutely no justification for attacking anyone else’s version. Also, I hope you all stub your toes and catch the swine flu.”
I think that’s a horrible thing to say. I hope you have enough integrity to apologize.
Report comment to moderator
Ringbearer – 29
Ringbearer, the part I bolded is NOT stated in Arcadia’s post #27.
Report comment to moderator
That’s my translation of Arcadia’s post. As Arcadia has already stated his support for dishonest translations of other’s words, I’m sure he won’t object.
Report comment to moderator
Ringbearer, it serves no purpose to misquote anyone, no matter how you might feel about them or what they post. What you’re doing is misleading, it doesn’t serve you well.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA: Your hatred for all things Christian is interesting, but not unusual. Your statement that I have attacked someones version, caused me to to go back and see if I did indeed do so. I did not ‘attack’ , but I suspect your rage blinds you. If you honestly feel that I did, please be kind enough to point me to it. There are many excellent books on the market that deal with the formation of the Canon, both Old and New Testament. Search for yourself because I believe that you do, and say what you do, not out of a desire to know the truth, but out of a need to justify yourself, and I will not give you fodder. I will however say this. My definitive text begins at Genesis 1:1 and ends at Revelations 22:21. I am sorry if I have given you no satisfaction, but more sorryful that you are consuming yourself with hatred.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
#31 Ringbearer- :LOL:
Oh, and don’t mind Victoria. She doesn’t have the same sense of humor you and I have. She leans towards giving people fuschia footwear when she feels they are out of line.
Report comment to moderator
Hey. I like Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s get rid of the NIV while we’re at it. It stinks too. The RSV and ESV are both superior. (I don’t like the NRSV.)
Report comment to moderator
Hey. I like the NIV.
Report comment to moderator
I like the NIV too.
Report comment to moderator
Ringbearer 31,
Too funny. Chortle material.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
The T-NIV was critized by most of the major Biblical scholars and Zondervan agreed not to publish it. But they saw the major financial investment they had and reneged on their promise.
Now they are admitting they made a mistake. They are saying it is not a good translation.
Report comment to moderator
Roger – 33 – that was a good post my friend.
Report comment to moderator
Too many of the nuances of the Greek text are lost in the NIV.
Besides, I see no reason to distinguish between the NIV and the TNIV. If one is opposed to dynamic equivalence, there’s no reason to like either.
Further, the debate over gendered pronouns is just silly. As a lawyer, I write and read others’ writing every day. Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly write using gender-neutral pronouns.
Report comment to moderator
RSD
The Bible isn’t about “gender-neutral pronouns” – that is a new idea, not consistent with Greek or Hebrew of the Old or New Testament.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that this really isn’t about some ridiculous “gender-neutral pronouns.” (On that subject: people have always used “he” and “mankind” to refer to the whole of humanity anyway.) This is about changing the Bible to be “politically correct.” It may be a small, seemingly harmless change, but then it always starts small.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia-
Maybe I should have said, “change the parts that are flat out wrong in their translation”.
As for which translation least offends: The Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament are the best translations!
Why soo many translations? Well, anybody that knows two or more languages knows that one language never translates word for word into another language. This is common knowledge. So, we have scholars that translate the original biblical languages with slightly different words. The different words or more often than not synonymous with each other. I compare translations to see where the different opinions are on those parts of the original languages don’t translate into the English language well.
I pray that you, Arcadia, will honestly seek the truth in these matters. The tone of your post makes it impossible to believe that you really wanted answers, but rather wanted to demean and redicule those that believe that we actually have and accurate bible.
Report comment to moderator
RSD #42: “…the debate over gendered pronouns is just silly. As a lawyer, I write and read others’ writing every day. Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly write using gender-neutral pronouns.” As a lawyer, I also read others’ writing every day. But, unlike you, I don’t equate ordinary legal writing with divinely-inspired Scripture. In the latter, there are several layers of meaning, which can be unearthed with some effort. Altering any aspect of the original text – whether for modern, trendy reasons, or for some other purpose – tends to place these deeper nuggets out of reach.
Report comment to moderator
. . . not to mention that believing we are at liberty to alter God’s word is presumptuous.
Report comment to moderator
I just read here(www dot nivbible2011 dot com/press dot html) that Zondervan is going to “update” the NIV.
It appears that after the furor over, and the later failure of the TNIV, that they are going to try once again. I strongly suspect they will once again attempt to foist the same heretical translation onto what they hope will be unsuspecting consumers by means of an “update” rather than an outright revision.
I lost all faith in the integrity of Zondervan years ago when they first attempted to foist the NIVI and later the TNIV on us. Because I no longer trust them I no longer buy anything they publish; I hope many others will do the same.
Report comment to moderator
Some of you might not be aware that Rupert Murdoch purchased Zondervan in 1988. Keep in mind Zondervan is the publisher for all Rick Warren’s books.
Report comment to moderator
I just had to provide this link from a brother at the Logos Bible Software forum. He is starting a new translation called “Fill In The Blank”.
I think everyone here will enjoy his example for various reasons!
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/09/fill-in-the-blanks-bible.html
Report comment to moderator
What will the “crack commandos” of the TNIV be working on next?
“(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)” (Ac 17:21)
Maybe the SNT version*?
————-
* Some-New-Thing
Report comment to moderator
EDITOR’S NOTE: Initially we quoted above from a post that appeared on Christianity Today’s blog that the writer later had to adjust a bit. With CT, we apologize for that misleading detail. The main point of the several stories, however, remains fully accurate. See WORLD’s coverage in next week’s magazine for a fuller report.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!