NIV upgrade or compromise

[nebula]

Trying to "modernize" some expression. Is it appropriate or PC?

You decide.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545301...test=latestnews

[~candice~]

Totally inappropriate. I don't think the bible needs to be PC. It is what it is and it says what it says.

It was the TNIV that ushered in changes from "sons of God" to "children of God," or "brothers" to "brothers and sisters." In Genesis I, God created "human beings" in his own image instead of "man."

Many prominent pastors and scholars endorsed the changes. But critics said masculine terms in the original should not be tampered with. Some warned that changing singular gender references to plural ones alters what the Bible says about God's relationships with individuals.

The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution saying the edition "has gone beyond acceptable translation standards."

I agree with the SBC. "sons of God" makes perfect sense in context, and so does God creating "man" in His image. A living Word doesn't need modernising...

[Guest Butero]

The people that put out the TNIV intentionally changed the text to cater to a feminist leaning audience. This so-called translation was condemned by most of the evangelical church leaders. Don't forget that the NIV had a translator on it's staff that was a lesbian. I wouldn't trust the NIV or TNIV. The TNIV is just more blantant about what they are doing. You don't mess around with God's Word like that. I want an accurate translation, not a p.c. one.

[~candice~]

The people that put out the TNIV intentionally changed the text to cater to a feminist leaning audience. This so-called translation was condemned by most of the evangelical church leaders. Don't forget that the NIV had a translator on it's staff that was a lesbian. I wouldn't trust the NIV or TNIV. The TNIV is just more blantant about what they are doing. You don't mess around with God's Word like that. I want an accurate translation, not a p.c. one.

They also fiddled with the creation account in Gen 2, to make it read "had made" rather than "made", to clear up an apparent contradiction. I don't trust the NIV as it is, and I wont trust the TNIV either.

[Forgiven_Man]

This is just ridiculous. The NIV version has enough faults already in my opinion, and now they want to change it some more. You can't convince me that this isn't about political correctness and catering to minorities.

[Guest Butero]

The people that put out the TNIV intentionally changed the text to cater to a feminist leaning audience. This so-called translation was condemned by most of the evangelical church leaders. Don't forget that the NIV had a translator on it's staff that was a lesbian. I wouldn't trust the NIV or TNIV. The TNIV is just more blantant about what they are doing. You don't mess around with God's Word like that. I want an accurate translation, not a p.c. one.

Now I know you have been told this before, but the whole "there was a lesbian translator for the NIV translation" is bunk, and you know it's bunk, so please stop using false information just because you are KJO. Virginia Mollencott was a literary (stylistic) critic/advisor on the NIV board for a few months and when her sexual orientation was discovered, she was fired. She had nothing to do with the translation or even any of the finished product, so you really need to quit saying what you said above as if it is fact. It is not, it is a lie and it is well-know that it is a lie.

The TNIV is an absolute horrible translation, and if they are trying to "modernize" the NIV and make it more PC, they are misguided. I'm beginning to stray away from the NIV and go back to either the KJV or the NASB. The NIV, like any translation, has a few errors in it, but they bother me more and more. I do not however, hold the view, as some do, that there are "inspired" translations. There is no such thing. All translations have errors. Only the orginal autographs are inspired and without error.

No, it is not a lie. There are several sources all over the internet that state that a lesbian helped translate the NIV Bible. You coming in here and telling me that it is a well known fact this is not true does not make you right. In addition, the same people that put out the NIV put out the TNIV. That in itself makes it impossible to trust the NIV. No, I DO NOT know that it is bunk. If it is bunk as you state, I want to know your source for this information, as well as who fired Virginia Mollencott, and at what point in the project the firing occured?

By the way Cobalt, I never brought up the King James Bible in this thread. Even when I make an effort to avoid the controversy, someone else has to bring it up. Yes, I am 100 percent King James Only, and will continue to be, but my problem with the NIV and TNIV goes beyond being KJV only. It has to do with the agenda of the translators.

UPDATE I just went back and looked into the claim made by Cobalt. There are a few pro-New Translation web-sites that have begun spreading the claim that Virginia Mollencott only worked on the NIV for a short time and had nothing to do with the translation. They further claim she was fired when they discovered she was a lesbian. According to another web-site from AV Publications, which has an exerpt from an article "The James White Controversy Part 6, G.A. Riplinger's Response To James White's Criticism," on 7-21-94, Kenneth Barker who worked for the publisher of the NIV wrote in a letter that Virginia Mollencott was involved in the earliest translation work in the late 60s and early 70s. In another letter by Virginia Mollencott, she stated that she was involved in the NIV project for years, not months, and in a tv interview, she denied having been fired. This so-called well known fact that she was fired after only a few months is a lie by those trying to defend the NIV and modern English translations in general.

[Guest Butero]

The people that put out the TNIV intentionally changed the text to cater to a feminist leaning audience. This so-called translation was condemned by most of the evangelical church leaders. Don't forget that the NIV had a translator on it's staff that was a lesbian. I wouldn't trust the NIV or TNIV. The TNIV is just more blantant about what they are doing. You don't mess around with God's Word like that. I want an accurate translation, not a p.c. one.

Now I know you have been told this before, but the whole "there was a lesbian translator for the NIV translation" is bunk, and you know it's bunk, so please stop using false information just because you are KJO. Virginia Mollencott was a literary (stylistic) critic/advisor on the NIV board for a few months and when her sexual orientation was discovered, she was fired. She had nothing to do with the translation or even any of the finished product, so you really need to quit saying what you said above as if it is fact. It is not, it is a lie and it is well-know that it is a lie.

The TNIV is an absolute horrible translation, and if they are trying to "modernize" the NIV and make it more PC, they are misguided. I'm beginning to stray away from the NIV and go back to either the KJV or the NASB. The NIV, like any translation, has a few errors in it, but they bother me more and more. I do not however, hold the view, as some do, that there are "inspired" translations. There is no such thing. All translations have errors. Only the orginal autographs are inspired and without error.

No, it is not a lie. There are several sources all over the internet that state that a lesbian helped translate the NIV Bible. You coming in here and telling me that it is a well known fact this is not true does not make you right. In addition, the same people that put out the NIV put out the TNIV. That in itself makes it impossible to trust the NIV. No, I DO NOT know that it is bunk. If it is bunk as you state, I want to know your source for this information, as well as who fired Virginia Mollencott, and at what point in the project the firing occured?

By the way Cobalt, I never brought up the King James Bible in this thread. Even when I make an effort to avoid the controversy, someone else has to bring it up. Yes, I am 100 percent King James Only, and will continue to be, but my problem with the NIV and TNIV goes beyond being KJV only. It has to do with the agenda of the translators.

Several sources on the internet? Yes, that's true, and all of them are KJO sites. Imagine that. I find it strangely ironic that to bolster their anti-NIV views that they have to lie to give their own view credence. Lying is a sin, the last time I checked, so what they do is just as bad as what they accuse the NIV translators of.

And you are right, you did not bring up the KJO tangent, I did, and I apologize. The fact is, the whole Virginia Mollencott angle is a red herring and it is a straw man, err. . . straw woman. Why not research it on some sites that are not biased?

The sources that claim Virginia Mollencott was only involved in the project for a few months and was fired when they discovered she was a lesbian came from pro new translation web-sites. I went back and did a little research of my own, and updated my last post with the new information. You have yet to tell me what web-sites you got your information from? If they are the ones I saw, they are biased. Why don't you take your own advise? And yes, lying is a sin. Claiming Virginia Mollencott was only invovled for a few months when she was involved for a few years is a lie. Claiming Virginia Mollencott didn't have any part in the actual translation when she did is a lie. I provided my source. Yes, Gail Riplinger is KJV only, but as I said, the web-sites supporting your ascertions are doing so to defend new translations, so they are just as biased in the other direction.

[EricH]

Would like to see it first before commenting

[kross]

Trying to "modernize" some expression. Is it appropriate or PC?

You decide.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545301...test=latestnews

I think the KJV and NKJV are more reliable sources of truth than the NIV as it is. f they change it, it will not change that opinion.