The Bible: Timeless Truth In Today's Language (Today's New International Version)

Rating:
Summary: The marketers worked harder than the translators
Review: In this review I will try to evaluate the translation itself without attributing malevolence to those who may disagree. Surely the issue of Bible translation is a button pusher- as seen by previous reviews- and the emergence of the TNIV has rallied the troops on all sides. (May we all be gracious.)

My overall impression is favorable, and, as translations go, this is a very good one. Having said that, much more could have been done to make it the "Timeless Truth in Today's Language." Some needed changes from the old NIV were never made, some changes were made but inconsistently, and one of the great verse renderings in the TNIV New Testament was reversed when the entire Bible was published.

The great change I refer to is in Romans 12:1 in the first edition of the NT :"Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer you bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God- this is your proper worship as rational beings." Wow! Now that's dynamic- and correct- translation. Though not a literal rendering, the idea of our service (worship) being logical or rational is clearly brought out. But when the entire Bible was published we get this: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God- this is true worship." What!! First of all, you go from a great dynamic rendering to something much less, and secondly, the word "true" is neither stated nor implied in the Greek! What happened to "rational"? The impact of the verse is lost and the reader is the loser on this verse.

Many of the word choices of the TNIV seem strange to me also, since the publicists keep pushing this as the Bible for this generation. Word choices such as reproach (1 Tim. 3:1), debauchery (Rom. 13:13), prudence (Prov. 1:4), dissolution (Luke 21:34), and temperate (1 Tim. 3:2) are simply not transparent to the reader, and better options exist. For example "blame" or "insult" would be much more appropriate than "reproach," depending on the context, and the meaning comes fresh to the mind. I think a young reader wanting more modern word choices and word flow would be much better served by the New Living Translation, a very dynamic translation. For something still modern but not as loosely worded as the NLT, try the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Or check out the Internation Standard Version at www.isv.org.

Inconsistencies abound. In Romans 12:10, "brotherly love" is replaced by simply "love." Yet, elsewhere (2 Peter 1:7) we read "mutual affection" for the same phrase. In John 3:17, we read, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." This verse is dynamically great and the meaning very clear. Why? Because the translators took out the ambiguous wording, "that the world might be saved through him." The inconsistency is that the translators failed to follow this practice throughout the NT and we find "might" in many confusing places, eg.Gal.3:22, "the Spirit might be given to those who believe." Will it or won't it be given? (The issue here is grammatical usage of a word. I could ask, "Might you go with me to the game?", but I would in fact never state it that way. In the real world, I would say, "Would you go with me to the game?") More examples could be given, but I hope you get the point.

Romans 8:9 is still a conundrum. A literal rendering would be, "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God lives in you." Note the "not in...but in..." Now see what the TNIV translators do to this verse: "You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but are in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you." See the difference? If the first "in" refers to "being in the control of" - which I will grant is the meaning- then why do the TNIV translators have us "in the Spirit" rather than "controlled by the Spirit"? Can't help but thinking that someone's dogma is driving that wording. Again, go the the NLT for clarity here.

The TNIV also softens the impact of some passages. The translators of the original NIV wee correct that the phrase "Lord of Hosts" is vague to the modern ear. But their remedy to that problem - the Lord Almighty- was not only vague but inaccurate, IMHO. Other translators, such as the International Standard Version, render "Lord of the Heavenly Armies" which is dynamically correct and also impacting. See James 5 :1-6. You have withheld and now God is going to repay you-Which has more impact to a young ear, judgement coming from the Lord Almighty or from the Lord of the Heavenly Armies? Think about it.

Another softening is in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 in the New Revised Standard Version: "in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." Wow! Some harsh words. Now try it in the TNIV: "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." Yawn.

In order to avoid masculine word choices, the translators sometimes just left words out. Acts 4:12 just omitted "among men." In Job 40:7, where God finally faces off with Job,rather than the visual of armed combat between men- "Gird up your loins like a man" - becomes (TNIV) "Prepare to defend yourself..." While I admit that "gird up your loins" requires some study to understand, the passage distinctly refers to male to male combat. Job was talking trash and now God is calling him down, taunting him to act like a man. Sexist talk, but correct Bible talk. (Even the much maligned NRSV says "like a man"!)

Much good in the TNIV also. Habakkuk 2:4 is right on the money:" See, he is puffed up, his desires are not upright- but the righteous will live by their faithfulness-" The word traditionally rendered "faith" in most evangelical translations is more correctly translated as "faithfulness," "fidelity," or similar. We can't mangle the OT passages to make them line up to their NT appearances. We need to be honest. Good job, TNIV translators!

Other good stuff: The use of contractions, making the English sound natural. Overall, it reads very well and flows. Traditional religious jargon retained: justification, redemption, etc. (One casualty, as in the NIV, was propitiation.) Good publisher (Zondervan).

One last warning: THe audio CD given with the Bible is, IMHO, just terrible. It seems strange to me that we translate a book into perfectly natural American English, and then hire British folk, with the heavy accent to read it! The CD was just too much work to listen to; I turned it off and put it away. I hope they offer a CD selection with American readers, no heavy background music, and no dramatization. I want the Word, not entertainment.

TNIV folk: Good start! I think you've got some work to do. So far, I don't see any compelling reason to put away my other Bibles.




Rating:
Summary: Most accurate yet
Review: The previous reviewer simply does not have his facts straight. This is the most gender accurate version today following the rules of Greek grammar better than previous versions, now what could be wrong with that, except for those who base their Bible interpretation on previous misunderstandings. The translators did not go against their agreement, they agreed not to be gender neutral (e.g., ignoring refs to male and female and homogenizing everything) and they did not do this. But they did decide to be gender accurate following the rules of Greek grammar, which upsets SOME people, a lot of whom are into patriarchy, which is supposedly Biblically new covenant, but is not. In the 1850's the slaveholders said that IF one says slaves should be free and equal to freemen, then one needs to say the same thing about women and men, that patriarchy should not exist either, as the verses about household codes discuss both. This was a reduction to absudity argument, but they were right in their analysis as to the implications.

Rating:
Summary: Not evangelical, for sure!
Review: With erudition that far surpasses so many postmodern translations, this translation will quickly become the standard gender-neutral bible. It's lack of support in the evangelical community shows that it is charting new ground and pushing former ideas to the wayside. It's carelessness in handling important gender issues to acclaim wide support will help those who struggle with the traditional biblical teaching of gender roles. In fact, we can expect this generation to embrace it with open arms. I hope that will not be the case. Zondervan went back on their word that they would not publish this. I hope that they are repaid duly for their error.