Comments

I think it is unfortunate that this type of language was used in describing scripture. There is really only VERY minor differences between most modern translations when you consider the entire scripture. And almost none of the differences are theologically significant. What we need to be teaching people is trust in "scripture" not their translation. No translation is perfect. And we should be teaching that any theological point that is based on a single translation is probably wrong. Scripture needs to be read in community and with some "experts" in our back pocket (whether those be pastors, commentaries, etc.).

The only gender-related language changes that I'm aware of were to make the translation reflect the real meaning of the original languages. It was changed ONLY IN those places where the original meant to include male and female so that the English would show that clearly. That anybody got upset over a translation that would more accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew texts simply shows how absurd some parts of the Christian world have become. It's no wonder people who believe our brains were part of God's gift to us think that they should steer clear of Christianity. As Executive Director of the Massachusetts Bible Society, I am deeply disappointed that Zondervan is caving to the nutcases.

My issues with the TNIV had more to do with the use of grammar and accommodation to compromise the original languages intentional meaning in order to make it more understandable to the reader. If I wanted something that would easier for seekers to grasp basic biblical teachings, I would reach for the Message or the NLT. If I want to do actual bible study or preparation, I would want my translation to not just use "they" or "them" to avoid having to specify a gender, as much of our society does. It's bad grammar and you lose some of the deeper meanings of the Scriptures, esp. in the Psalms when it alludes to the true "Blessed Man" who is Christ.

I think this is a poor decision, and perhaps a submission to pressure from fundamentalists(?). I'm very disappointed in Zondervan for making this reversion.

The Scriptures reflect a patriarchal society in which women had hardly any status. To make language (where appropriate) reflect that the good news of God in Christ are for every one (not just men) is a good thing. I'd say that gender inclusive language is now beyond a "political correctness" and more reflective of the kingdom of God.

I guess I'll have to stock up before the TNIV gets pulled.

Really, I'd like to withhold judgement about this new NIV but I'm feeling a little bitter. Maybe we'll get lucky and this new version will maintain most of the changes that the TNIV incorporated with whatever periodic revision it would have had anyway. Please no going back to "brothers" and "sons" only.

In spite of its flaws, maybe I'll have to stick with the NRSV.

The suggestion that this will mend the Evangelical community is far from logical and acceptable. In truth, a large number of women have taken great offense to the NIV's lack of gender inclusivity in the past. In fact, I have stopped turning to the NIV period in the last 15 years. On the contrary, the TNIV, while certainly flawed (as, let's be honest, what translation = perfection?) seemed to make brave steps to seek a more holistic, gender-inclusive language.

As a result, I can promise that I will, like Chuck but more unabashedly, remain a staunch supporter of the NRSV (and at times, the NASB) over any NIV translation.

As for my support of Zondervan, the purchasing power of this graduate student is going elsewhere.

Big deal. Translations come, translations go. Personally, this whole war over the TNIV has been a tempest in a teacup, and I'll be glad to see the back of it (unless people decide to become like spoilt kids and whine "That's not fair...").

Doesn't every translation seek to put the original language into a context that the readers will understand? The writings of the First Testament are well over 2700 years old, written during the very beginnings of text-based communications. The scrolls Jesus read, and Peter and Paul quoted, were translated into the language of the time (without spellcheck or textual criticism classes.) Faithful translators have made these words accessible and relevant to “contemporary” readers for well over 2200 years. And during this entire time the Holy Spirit has managed to use the flaws of humanity to communicate God's message of love and redemption to a fallen world. But now we are going to let "market forces" determine whether or not God's word speaks to a world that is rapidly approaching a post-gender mentality? What does this say to the people who have found meaning in this translation - that their understanding of God is suspect because of inter-denominational squabbles? I pray that the policies that guide translators are reviewed and renewed to be faithful to their mission, rather than to their sales & marketing departments.

My primary concern is not over gender-accuracy even though I think that is an important point. I've just come to believe from what I've heard and read that the TNIV is on the whole more accurate than the NIV. Are there things that could be changed? Sure. But I don't want to see any new version take a step back.

My only comment would be that "translators" just need to stay true to the original languages as much as possible. If they are going to vary from them I think that the version should be referred to as a "paraphrase".

I've been to many a Bible study and never once heard a woman complain about lack of "gender inclusivity." Most of us are well able to comprehend that there is a generic masculine in English.

I'm sorry to see the executive director of the Massachusetts Bible Society dismiss her fellow Christians as "nutcases."

I'll be willing to bet it tooks pretty much like the TNIV only with slight revisions. The TNIV is just not selling compies is the bottom line of the whole thing. If Zondervan can get critics to back off this new edition, it will sell more copies. Hopefully what we gain is a great translation.

Bible translation is no simple or easy task. The TNIV seemed to come across as being more interested in cultural relevancy than biblical accuracy, so it's refreshing to see this sort of humility and self-correction as part of the process. Instead of taking jabs at the editors and announcing boycotts of their work, maybe we should be praying for them as they work on a translation that is faithful to the Bible's intending meaning?

I love how taking the higher rode always includes in fact jabbing people who disagree with you, rather than having a conversation.

The reality is that Zondervan's decision to publicly suggest that the TNIV was a failure due to the gender-inclusive language, rather than teaching about its actual closer accuracy to biblical texts based on our flawed English grammar, is what is disappointing. I'm not jabbing at editors, they've clearly made a statement about the role of women in the Church and in scripture.

I love how taking the higher road always in fact jabs people who disagree, rather than having a conversation involving varying perspectives.

The reality is that Zondervan's decision to publicly suggest that the TNIV was a failure due to the gender-inclusive language, rather than teaching about its actual closer accuracy to biblical texts based on our flawed English grammar, is what is disappointing. I'm not jabbing at editors, they've clearly made a statement about the role of women in the Church and in scripture.

No "brothers" or "sons" only indeed! After all, why should we care what God actually said when we can come along 2,000 to 3,000 years later and tell the world what He really meant?

This is sad for me to say, but I think the time for the NIV has just come and gone. Look at how many people are upset because ANYTHING is "being changed"! To me, that says that too many of us were dependent on the particular wording of a single translation, or dependent on the capital that such a translation could produce for us. And that, to me, is a far greater travesty than any of this TNIV/NIV/ESV/NNIV controversy.

I'm not perfect, but the best thing for my soul now is to step around this and go with other translations that aren't involved in division-making. That still leaves a wide range--from the NASB, NKJV and NRSV, to the NLT and Message. Let's remember that the important thing is faith expressing itself in love, yeah?

Odd, that Zondervan would cave in over the minor 'division' that the TNIV has produced yet be mum about the theological and doctrinal errors of the emergent authors they promote.

The biggest flaw in both the NIV and the TNIV is not gender, etc., but translation theory. The "Dynamic Equivalence" theory permits the translators to engage in interpretation rather than translation. A classic example of this is Rom. 1:17, where one of the six possible interpretaions of "out of faith into faith" (lit., from ek pisteos eis pistin), or "from faith to faith" as in most committee translations, is read back into the text as, "by faith, from first to last." That is ONE possibility, but not even the best possibility, given the context of Romans. It is not even accurately translated. The English reader needs to have the language of the Lord communicated to him as accurately as possible WITHOUT unjustified tampering by the translation committee.

The English language has not changed to incomprehensibility in 25 years. These translators - are they competent? There is no change in how English handles gender. There -is- an anti-Christian ideology trying to force change on the language to suit that anti-Christian ideology, but that is not natural linguistic change, which occurs more slowly than the span of living memory.

Zondervan is correct that the NIV published in 1978 and revised in 1984 needs updating. But in our fragmented evangelical world, it will be difficult to regain market share.

The PCA folks are never going to give up their ESV. The Southern Baptists have their HCSB. The Presbyterians and Methodists tend to go NRSV or RSV.

The TNIV wasn't the problem--the American church is split right down the middle on issues related to women in the church. According to Duke sociologist Mark Chaves, "51% of congregations in the United States do not allow women to be full-fledged senior clergy." (The National Congregations Study report "American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century" http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/Docs/NCSII_report_final.pdf p. 16).

Zondervan and Biblica should be very careful about criticizing the TNIV when likely the 2011 NIV will be very similar to it. Furthermore, by criticizing the TNIV they are disenfranchising the very people who have long known that the NIV needed an update and have switched over to it. They will need these thoughtful and courageous evangelical early adopters or the NIV 2011 will fall flat.

This story misses the point of the announcement. They were apologizing for ever freezing the text of the NIV, not apologizing carte blanche for the TNIV. I expect that the best of the TNIV text will find its way into the NIV 2011.

The TNIV was a tragic mistake and reading some of the comments here it is evident that many have a low value placed on accurately translating Scripture. We as a church have switched from the NIV to the ESV with great welcome from the church family.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=139587007840&ref=search&sid=604227128.1359342038..1

Well, I am boycotting Biblica. The TNIV was a good translation, my main Bible at school, and deserved better support than the IBS and Zondervan gave it.

Having done several extensive research projects on the TNIV in Bible College (not that that makes me right) I feel like this is a money issue and a response to controversy more than an issue of translation.

I hope the NIV Bible in 2011 is a good translation and is accurate, and includes gender-inclusive language, and neither of these is mutually exclusive in my mind.

A horrible decision.
The TNIV had the remarkable gift of bridging the gap between sound evangelical bible scholarship on the one hand (Zondervan's good legacy in Bible publishing), and on the other hand publishing a contemporary language bible that recognized the time has passed in all languages (even Bible translations) for the use of male gender nouns and pronouns when referring to all humanity, male and female.
I will no longer be purchasing bibles from Zondervan.
Anyone know of another Bible besides the TNIV that meets the balance TNIV navigated so well?

"I love how taking the higher rode always includes in fact jabbing people who disagree with you, rather than having a conversation."

I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I see where my comment should be clarified. When I said the TNIV comes across as being more interested in cultural relevancy than biblical accuracy, I was referring to the way it was marketed. Though I'm not a fan of the translation, I would give the editors the benefit of the doubt that they were really trying to be biblically accurate, and I think this is evidenced in their admission that they made mistakes.

To go through blindly and switch everything to gender-inclusive, you are actually telling the world that the daughters of God are not given the sonship inheritance that the males have.

Romans 8:14-15 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

That phrase, "you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons" is such joyously good news for all women throughout all cultures and races. The Bible is proclaiming here that "not only are you chosen and brought into the family of God and His children but just in case in your world that women are second class citizens, let Me make it clear that you are adopted at the same level as any son of mine and have all the rights and privileges thereof."

Boycotting Biblica???? Oh please, may we all just remember we are adults and not stroppy teens here. They are free to do what they like. I like the TNIV, even though I'm a complementarian and Reformed, but the fact that they want to cancel it is simply their right to do so...

In the words of king Solomon (updated of course) "And of the making of new Bible translations there is no end"

Not that there is anything wrong with new translations.. I have a tendency to think that sometimes things get a little out of hand here.

Whatever be the case I wish the translation/update team all the best and pray that they proceed with wisdom with their new task.

I'm going to have to step out and say some things here that most assuredly will not be well received.

Obviously no English translation of Scripture will be without error. We are fallen, depraved beings. But the TNIV is down right upsetting. This "gender inclusive" issue that keeps coming up is saddening as well. It is a direct result of the impact that modern feminism has had on our Evangelical churches. I make no apologies for my complimentarian stance and neither does Scripture.

The TNIV and in many cases, NIV, are too lax in their translation. Each and every word of the original text has its own distinct meaning and should be regarded and respected. Thought for thought translations are degrading to the original intent of the authors.

All that to say that I'm thrilled the TNIV is being done away with. I pray that the 2011 NIV is prayerfully thought through and those working on it will submit themselves fully and faithfully to the Lord and their task.

Arguments about "Dynamic Equivalency" vs. Literal vs whatever.
The lack of awareness that in common English the gender-inclusive masculine has been virtually non-existent for forever.
How many people commenting on here are actually fluent in a second language? How many have actually done translation work? Literal translations - of anything, much less Scripture - are essentially unintelligible.
I have often heard European Christians say that these controversies would never arise on the European continent where virtually everyone is painfully aware of the difficulties of handling concepts clearly in more than one language on a day-to-day basis
And for Heaven's sake (!) STOP questioning the motives of your brothers & sisters when you don't know their hearts. As a friend of mine says, "the Christian army is the only one that makes a habit of shooting its own soldiers".

The TNIV failure was always more about marketing and tribal identity than about what the actual product ended up being. Early draft versions took far greater liberties in pushing certain interpretations, for example, explicity putting the word "deaconess" into 1 Timothy 5, but those sorts of changes never made it into the finished product. However, by then ideological battle lines already had been drawn; neo-liberals joined Team TNIV while neo-Calvinists flocked to Team ESV.

The NLT flies under the radar as every bit as much a gender-inclusive translation as the TNIV, but since it never got the liberal label, it isn't controversial.

The NIV 2011 likely will keep all but a few of the TNIV translation choices. Biblica and Zondervan will do their homework this time in getting the proper evangelical egos stroked so that this translation gains acceptance and NIV readers start adopting it.

Neo-liberals can take heart -- the TNIV now becomes like an icon of authenticity for you. Stock up now; with a TNIV in hand you immediately gain authority in your community to pontificate about how really it is the best translation of all time, but the evil woman-oppressing fundamentalists suppressed it to hide God's truth. Your fellow interpreters will be deeply impressed. Perhaps it will take the place of the REB as the official "my possession of this niche translation proves I am more sophisticated than you" white people English Bible. As long as nobody has an NIV 2011 on hand to observe that it's almost identical to your TNIV, your narrative will carry.

@Clyde: I think you're right about tribal identity and the NLT's (merciful) exemption from the fight. I think I might be looking at the issue from the other side of the divide, though. Your caricature of the TNIV-toter could be perfectly reversed to depict an ESV-toter. As long as people don't know that the ESV is just the RSV plus marketing plus malicious and/or ignorant slander of the TNIV, your narrative will carry.

Ted, can you tell us who the quote "We fell short of the trust that was placed in us." comes from and what the context of the statement was? Currently it only appears below the headline.

Those who actually translate the Bible are much more forgiving about the renderings of other versions that are different from their own. Often the vocal critics have never had one verse of Greek or Hebrew rendered into English and put into print for all to see--they just throw stones from a distance.

I have been at Theological conferences, listen to the critics of the TNIV (or listened on religious radio), and then find within 5 minutes an example where the advocated translation has made exactly the same mistake in another passage.

The best translation is the one that is read and studied--that is the version to be personally invested in. The word of God is a treasure, not a mere corporate asset.
You may have a Bible in your possession, but It only can own you.

Tangential to this discussion is the fact that a perfectly good word, "gender," is now vague and muddy. Less than a decade ago, "gender" had to do with grammatical case and people didn't seem to mind using the word "sex" to denote the difference between men and women. Now, even job applications use "gender" incorrectly.

Let's start over this discussion.
1. There is going to be an updated edition of the NIV released in 2011. This is done by Biblica. Now that should not be controversial in itself.
2. The more controversial part is that Zondervan does not plan to publish the old edition of the NIV (last updated in 1984) or the TNIV after the NIV 2011 is released. That of course puts tremendous pressure on the NIV 2011 translators to satisfy devoted readers of the TNIV and NIV (1984). Still, Doug Moo and his team are probably up to the task or at least will try dearly to succeed.
3. Like the so-called repenting of Willow Creek a while back which detractors pounced on to trumpet what they always knew to be the case, the blogs and Twitter are awash with reflections on the TNIV ("good riddance" some say and "what a tragedy" say others) when this really is not about the TNIV but Zondervan hoping to consolidate and streamline its products and to get both conservatives and moderate evangelicals using the same translation again.

It's interesting to note that almost all of the individual players at Zondervan and Biblica are new to the scene since the TNIV controversy first erupted. The old International Bible Society (which owns the copyrights to the NIV and the TNIV) merged with STL last year and has recently changed its name to Biblica. People like Keith Danby (Biblica) and Mo Gerkins (Zondervan) can refer to the "mistakes we made," but they were not personally part of those decisions related to the TNIV or the NIVI.

I'm glad that the Biblica leadership (in concert with the [NIV] Committee on Bible Translation) has backed away from their predecessorts' commitment never to make changes in the text of the NIV. The NNIV (or whatever they choose to call it) will make significant improvements in the 1984 text of the NIV.

I should not have used a polarizing term like "nutcases" in my earlier post. I have let the baggage of attacks on my faith and people calling me evil because God chose to use me (a woman--gasp) in pastoral ministry override my better judgment.

While there are certainly Christian nutcases out there, just as there are in every faith, it was not the right way to represent my opinion and is not the way MBS strives to engage the world. My apologies to those who were offended and thanks to those who called me to my better angels.

I am, however, still deeply disappointed by Zondervan's decision. While some may not have ever been in groups where inclusive language matters. I have met many people who have left the church entirely because of the feeling of exclusion. "In Christ there is no male or female." Let our language be clear about that.

When did the NIV become the KJV?

I grew up in an era when I actually heard people talking about the KJV as in 'if its good enough for Paul its good enough for me'. Now it seems that the same evangelicals who were open to a modern translation (NIV) are now scared to death of a new modern translation.

Maybe the problem is that most of us rely on one translation, don't understand the translation process, nor what each translation brings to the table (and what each leaves out).

This would be a great time to teach folks about translations in general and the benefits of relying on numerous translations (literal, dynamic equivalent, paraphrase, etc.)

Andy, you can restart the conversation, but it still appears that decisions are being made from a sales & marketing perspective, and not from a grounded theological or Biblical research perspective. I would present the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/) as a model of translation that focuses on biblical vision for translation scholarship - not a profit-driven model. The original NIV was a labor of conviction by evangelical scholars - and Zondervan was chosen to be the publisher. I pray that no "market data" influence is driving decisions at Biblica, and that it stays true to its mission.

"The Scriptures reflect a patriarchal society in which women had hardly any status." Is an monumental misunderstanding of New Testament teaching. No one raised the stature of women for 2 thousand years higher and better than Jesus and Paul. Such as "there is no male or female in Christ" obliterates sexual discrimination rather than raising any sort of competition or jockeying the way today's secularist wish it to be done.

Joel wrote:
Maybe the problem is that most of us rely on one translation, don't understand the translation process, nor what each translation brings to the table (and what each leaves out).

This would be a great time to teach folks about translations in general and the benefits of relying on numerous translations (literal, dynamic equivalent, paraphrase, etc.)

My Comment:
I think that is a great idea!!!!!

I prefer to read several translations, looking at the Greek and Hebrew as much as my feeble mind allows, as ways of gaining insight into the originals. I'm not threatened by some of these efforts at dynamic equivalence, though I primarily prefer the more literal translations (ESV) as a benchmark.

Sadly, I worry that marketing corrupts many of these efforts.

Additionally, I am troubled that many seem to think that the Word must conform to the reader, not the other way around. If the Word, rightly translated and handled, offends us, we are wrong.

In a few centuries, there will be NIV-only churches just as there are KJV-only ones and both will be based on lunacy since God is clearly more interested in us understanding His word than in the way they are written. That's why the NT was written in Greek: because it was what was most accessible.

I have to agree with some other comments that most of those responding are entirely missing the point. The issue here is not the validity of the TNIV's handling of gender language---no matter our particular viewpoint. The issue is IBS's and Zondervan's marketing and maintenance of their translations. (I include both, although their areas of responsibility are distinct.) And I think many of us, on either side of the issue, can appreciate such an honest assessment. IMO they have made serious mistakes, not the least of which was a major release of a significant new translation (the TNIV), only to essentially orphan it with no support. Yes, it suffered an extremely emotional attack, at least partly fueled by populist arguments that revealed a lack of understanding of translation process, and hostile and arrogant assumptions regarding the personal motives of the translators. But many would argue that Zondervan didn't adequately maintain the spirited support that the TNIV needed to flourish or even survive.

I am an unabashed complementarian who was also enthusiastically supportive of the TNIV. We adopted the TNIV as our congregational Bible. But because of a decided lack of support by the publishers, coupled with a fresh look at the second edition of the NLT, we moved on to the NLT-SE. We've never been happier with a translation of Scripture. (And I say that as someone who teaches expositionally through books of the Bible.)

I wish Biblica all the best with yet another translation. But I don't foresee us ever returning to an NIV-family text. We simply don't trust them not to have another midstream change of priorities. I suspect they may have problems regaining the momentum that they've lost with their marketing decisions the last few years. I hope I'm wrong.

I should clarify that I meant that Zondervan (not Biblica) may have problems regaining the momentum that they've lost due to their marketing decisions the last few years.

I agree with many who have posted here, that I will not likely take my purchasing power to Zondervan. Having made a bold contribution to the Bibles in people's hands, they were cowed by emotional backlash from people with other agendas. It is more than unfortunate that they have now given those particular agendas a "victory." I am out; it will be NRSV for expositional preaching and the NLT for other events.

This capitulation is very sad. Here is a classic misrepresentation of the issue from Grudem -

1. To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”.”

But, in fact, the expression “to assume authority” came directly from Calvin’s Latin translation of this verse, and was included in his commentary.

Docere autem muliere non permitto, neque auctoritatem sibi sumere in virum,

I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man,

If Calvin’s translation views are not good enough for Grudem, will they be recalled also?

2. Another misrepresentation is that salvation is for the "sons of God." Luther and Tyndale translated this rather as the "children of God."

3. 1 Timothy 5:8 says,

"If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." ESV

Erasmus and Calvin believed that this verse referred to women, but could be considered a general truth, applicable to men also. There is no masculine pronoun in the Greek, and the pronoun "he" is simply inserted into the English for no good reason.

This is one of the biggest hoaxes of our era, that the TNIV is not a accurate in its treatment of gender. Along with the NORS it is one of the most gender accurate Bibles available.

I meant NRSV. In my view, this is a rejection of Reformation principles of translation.

Honestly, this news kind of ruined my day, since I've been using the TNIV for over four years and was looking forward to it eventually replacing the NIV.

Quite frankly, I am disinterested in any updated NIV in 2011. I suppose that I will switch to the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version). It has stood the test of time thus far (since 1989), and is gender-accurate.

I suspected this would happen. This decision will also impact the new Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series (which uses the TNIV as its English translation)whose first volume on James was released in '08. Apparently, several of the scholars slated to contribute future volumes in the series are chomping at the bit in order to dismantle the TNIV's translation of certain words and verses anyway. However, I suspect that the 'NIV 2011' will simply be the TNIV with a new cover on it. Let's be honest with ourselves and God, how many American Christians TRULY study their Bibles closely enough to notice any subtle textual changes made to it. Although Christians in America want to portray the veneer that a so-called 'united front' exists among believers in our increasingly 'Christian-hating' society, it does not. If indeed Zondervan is kowtowing to the whims of Fundamentalists, let me remind its owners and operators that these are the same people propagating and filling the public arena with the heresy of Pelagianism / Semi-pelagianism (which both Reformed and Classical Arminians categorically reject)that has become an epidemic among American Evangelicals today and is neutering the power of the Gospel. Why cave in to the whims of a segment of the Church that espouses a sub-Biblical understanding of salvation, regardless of its wealth and ability to influence the masses because it dictates the content of much Christian publishing and programming? They contributed much of the vitriol that has led to Americans society's disdain and mistrust of the Church to begin with. Now Christians who sincerely want to share the Gospel with unregenerates have to clean up THEIR mess by attempting to show the lost that Biblical Christianity bears little resemblance to the kind modeled by many Fundamentalist figureheads.

protestants shouldn't be too upset by this...after all, they saw fit to delete a few books from the bible (as well as skip over many passages) over the past couple hundred years, so what's the big deal if a few words are changed now? most of them are not as "sola scriptura" as they think . . .

Love how Doug Moo says the CBT wouldn't stand by the NIVi, but they would the TNIV.

The difference statistically between the TNIV and NIVi is extremely low. Is it the name they wouldn't stand by, or that sliver of percentage difference?

The NIV 2011 will come out, will probably be slightly less gender-inclusive then the TNIV, and people will love it cause it's their trusted old NIV...

I really pray that the CBT has the courage and spirit to really make some fresh translation and to try as be as accurate to the text as possible. Not as close to the NIV wording as possible. Not as close to Wayne Grudem's, Vern Polythress', and James Dobson's wording as possible.

John's comment beautifully calls out three so-called 'luminaries' who are undoubtedly influencing this unexpected, cowardly decision from Zondervan:

"Not as close to Wayne Grudem's, Vern Polythress', and James Dobson's wording as possible."

Most of the people who have criticized the TNIV are NOT fundamentalists. What's wrong with the TNIV is the same thing that's wrong with the NIV and that is, that it leaves too many of the verses out. For an example, one half the last chapter in the book of Mark is left out of the NIV. Unfortunately there is a lot of verses left out of both the NIV and the TNIV. That's the real problem.

No, I'm not one of these people who believe in the KJV only. Personally, I think the NASB and the NKJV are the best and more accurate, by far than any other modern version.

As a linguist– BA U of Wisconson-Madison 1984– and a lifelong Bible student I rapidly came to distrust the first NIV.

Understandably in a culture that equates unbridled capitalism– "Mammon," Jesus might say– with godliness, the NIV softens the Law of Moses' repeated prohibition of usury (Ex 22.25, Lev 25.6,7, Deut 23.19,20) to prohibition of "excessive interest."

In 1st Corinthians 7.4 the KJV and the NRSV (and I) correctly translate Paul: "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband [does]: and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife [does]."

Again the NIV, understandably in today's world, compromises the absolute Word "The wife ALONE does not have authority over her own body, but ALSO the husband: and likewise also the husband ALONE does not have authority over his own body, but ALSO the wife."

(I am also uneasy with the NRSV's inclusive language, "brothers and sisters" for Paul's "brothers." But in Christian love and Victorian courtesy, both of which I profess, what can I say to the ladies, my sisters,?)

Bible translators must not compromise the Word; they must not compromise with the world.

JK,

Left out is a shoddy way of saying it.

According to many of the most accepted Textual Criticism techniques the "left-out" half a chapter in Mark isn't actually left out.

Bibles that have it are probably just keeping in a later addition from a someone who thought the original ending of Mark was just a little too open.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscript_tradition

NIV 2011: I am excited for a fresh look at the NIV. It needs it. I am praying Biblica has the scholarly cajones to make a good translation.

I believe the hoopla (good theological word) over the TNIV was ridiculous and you should not feel the need to apologize for attempting to make a faithful and inclusive translation of the book we love and by which we live our lives. I look forward to the new translation but I am disappointed you felt the need to apologize for the old.

Made Yahoo news...This is an important issue to Christians and NonChristians alike.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090901/ap_on_re/us_rel_bible_translation

Just to note that the use of common gender male pronouns in English is ambiguous - a male pronoun can either mean 'male' or 'male and female'. Now this need not be a problem if the context is clear, but it has been true at some times and in some places that the ambiguity has been resolved as 'men and women' except when it seems to matter, when it seems consistently to mean 'men only'.

Now this effective 'male when it matters' hermeneutic is not faithful to the original text, because the original languages make their own distinctions between men and people. Since these distinctions can be reflected in translation, they should be so reflected, because they then help the reader to avoid a mistaken understanding.

The vehemence with which some people argue against such a straightforward proposition does rather suggest that there is more going on here than meets the eye. After all if it didn't matter, the vehemence wouldn't be there, and if the concern was for the faithful translation of scripture there would be no argument to be had.

Keep the gender inclusive language where the intent of the Greek warrents! Don't be swayed by neo-reformed theological bias! Read Darrell Bock's article: http://bible.org/article/do-gender-sensitive-translations-distort-scripture-not-necessarily

Gender inclusivity is not the only issue that sometmes suffers from original text, as author's intent is always informed by the times in which he (or she!) lives. Deciphering an author's political correctness is not the task of translation, but of exegisis.

Yes, Keith. And thankfully the translators of the TNIV were not seeking to determine political correctness, but simply the best way to convey the actual meaning of the text, as the author intended.

It will indeed be interesting to see how "gender neutrality" will be implemented when dealing with the creation of men and women in Genesis or The Apostle Paul's commands concerning gender roles in the Church per 1 Timothy 2:12, etc. At some point, the feminists will simply have to show their true colors and expunge these "offensive" passages from scripture altogether.
The differences between NIV and KJV are not always so trivial.
For instance, the entire verse in Acts 8:37( the Eunuch verbally confessing to Phillip that Jesus Christ is the Son of God) is missing completely from NIV. This sort of thing has caused me not to trust the NIV or ANY "SV" version.
Any new versions should include detailed articles on the manuscripts used, why they were chosen, and the background and theological beliefs of the translators.
Finally, the atheistic influence of Westcott and Hort (early 19th century translators) which has echoed through this whole line of "SV", NIV translations, should be finally eliminated.

No matter what the translation, we must be careful that the true MEANING is not tainted, or changed…we cannot add or take away words, lets not forget what it says in the last book of Revelations.

This is the reason I use a parellel Bible so I can compare the NIV, NKJV, ESV and NLT to try to determine what the true (more correct??) translation should be. But to be honest, we use the NIV at church, when I am reading for enjoyment or the pleasure of the story I use the NLT and my ESV or NKJV for in-depth study. I think that the Jews were insanely obsessed with keeping the OT as accurate as humanly possible and that should be the standard we use as well inside the realm of also using language that is readible to both the believer and the non-believer. To bring this issue to a coflict seems to be fairly pharisitical to me (Jesus seemed to have a big problem with the Phaisees, but He was very gracious and merciful to people like the Samaritans who had the right heart).

I am pretty simple minded and like things to be straight forward.So I am sure my reading of this article and not taking offense to the announcement was because I didn't read anything else into it. After reading all of the comments, some quite passionate, I am glad I keep things simple. No matter what translation I am reading, what origional language I am trying to decifer or concordance I am searching,I rely on the Spirit to open my eyes to Truth and the messege He is trying to reveal. Because we are all fallen, even those who translate,there will always be a clouded view.It is sad to me that Christians are judging other Christians based on assumptions.You get what you are looking for.

I used the NIV for years, but some time ago, when I began to compare the wording of the Greek New Testament with the ESV, NASB, NIV and TNIV -- I came to observe that the ESV and NASB translations were far closer to the original language. The NIV was, sometimes, a little loose, but the TNIV sometimes included primary English words for which no Greek word with that meaning was present in the original text. In other words, you got the editor's personal opinion - not in a foot-note - but imposed on the actual text. For this reason, I could never recommend the TNIV as a primary Bible. Some factions may love it for its "gender inclusively," but one should never confuse popular "paraphrase" with "accuracy." In other words, the TNIV may have *said* what some groups really "wanted" it to say -- irrespective of whether the meaning was present in the original language or not. Even the NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation and does not claim to attempt to be "word for word" accurate. When faithfulness to the original language is tossed in favor of cultural correctness, you no longer have a (true) Bible but a novel.

Bruce,

The ESV and NASB may stick closer to the original wording of the text, but words alone a meaning do not make. Bibles of the dynamic variety don't bow down to cultural correctness or anything of the sort...they seek to express the original meaning of the text in the readers language. You can come up with a very literal translation of the original languages, but have a shoddy translation that no one could understand. It's important to ask if the original meaning of the text was carried across, not just the original wording.

During the late 1980's, I was a "soft" complementarina, believing that as long as they were under male supervision, women could teach and preach God's Word. However, while working with some egalitarian friends in a ministry to international students, I was challenged to reconsider my viewpoint.

Since I desired to know and practice the true teaching of Scripture on this matter, I took up my friends' challenge and began an investigative study which focused on what the New Testament taught regarding the gift and ministry of prophecy. The question I sought to answer was, "When they weren't predicting the future, what functions did prophets and prophetesses perform in the Early Church?"

What I discovered, of course, was that they were proclaiming the "message of Christ" to the whole congregation, giving them guidance, instruction and encouragement. Or, as we would say today, they were engaged in pastoral counseling, teaching and preaching. Needless to say, I gave up my traditionalist view, joined CBE, and have ever since done my best to encourage Christian women whom the Spirit has gifted and called into ministry and leadership. For I am convinced to do otherwise would to oppose the united purpose and activity of the Triune God, as taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:1-26.

However, contrary to what some of my Reformed friends thought at the time, it was not due to the influence of gender-inclusive translations, which "pushed a feminist agenda," that I came to my conclusions. For in my original studies, other than the Greek New Testament, my primary Bible translations were the RSV, NASB and the NIV--translation which were far less "gender-sensitive" than are the current NRSV, TEV, TNIV and NLT. It was the desire to truly know and practice the truth of Scripture, as revealed and confirmed to me by the Holy Spirit, and then experiencing this revelation and confirmation in answer to the prayerful and careful study of Scripture, that led me to where I am today.

And though a longtime NIV user, I have been using the TNIV the last two years and regard it as an improvement on the NIV. And I hope the 2011 revision will be even better. But whatever translation we use, I wonder if we really so desire to know and practice the truth of God's Word that we allow it truly to judge our doctrine and practices, are ready to change our teaching and practices as Scripture demands, and then united in truth and love, effectively reach our world for Christ as the apocalypse draws near? That is the real question, I think.

Francis,
While I would consider myself a qualified complementarian, I wish that all believers had your attitude. I'm afraid too many in both camps hold their views because "That's the the way I was raised," or "Dr. So-and-so says that's how to interpret the Bible" or "How can you be so stupid not to see the plain meaning of [insert favorite proof-text]". We all need to shape our views and practices by a thorough study of the scriptures, and not by tradition or people's opinions alone. Thanks for sharing your story.

And I do find it interesting that you came to your egalitarian views using the RSV, NIV and NASB, which are less "gender inclusive" than the HCSB or (gasp!) ESV. It just doesn't hold water when people say, "You only believe that because you read Translation X". You can make egalitarian arguments from the NIV, and you can make complementarian arguments from the TNIV. Translations don't differ THAT much, and virtually no differences in doctrine hang on the translation used.

Maybe a little perspective can be obtained on this by remembering that most of the world's Christians do not read the Bible in English at all. Many, to take an example, read it in Chinese. In Chinese the word for person is "jen" (depending how you romanize it.) The pronoun for she or he is the same word, "ta".

Apologies. To make my comment about Chinese clearer I should have said: "In Chinese the word for a person of either gender is simply "jen" (depending how you romanize it.) The pronoun for she or he is also just one word "ta".

Francis and Tim:

I agree. I guesss you could call me a Reformed Catholic. I left the Catholic church in 1975 using the Douay-Rheims version and became more-or-less Baptist and used the KJV. Then in 1985 followed the rest of The Navigators in moving to the NIV and have been pretty much using the NASB since 2003.

If God calls a woman, and He has and does, to preach, teach, prophesy, etc. then it is her _duty_ to follow that call. Period. End-of-story.

On the other hand...it is _my_ duty to "search the Scriptures daily, to see if those things are so." Ac 17:11 Also to pray and ask for wisdom and understanding _as_well_as_ doing the research and study to find out the answers where there are apparent differences "rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15

That said...for the most part, as I have stated elsewhere...I fervently pray and hope that they simply slap an NIV cover on the text of the TNIV and say "There!"

Please fix the intentionally deceptive title of this article and the first paragraph. I know that you have a note correcting your error, but your title still reads as if CBT has admitted mistakes in the TNIV which they clearly have not done.

Your title is a lie. Please fix it.

Your first paragraph is at the very least confusing on this issue. Please fix it.

Did you know that the TNIV is missing an important word, and that missing word makes Jesus into a liar? Check out this short video to see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7oWuQbgmjY

I recommend the NIV change this verse
They plundered all these villages, since there was much booty there. New International Version, 2 Ch 14:14 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984).

There must have been a lot of cute girls there in the city! Booty ?:) The NIV needs to update "thongs" "booty" and many more items. The revision is good thing. But they should have kept the TNIV for those who did like it. I use it some, and though I do not advocate it per se, it is an over all reliable translation, in spite of some published tomes that criticize it; their arguments are specious and mostly smack of sophistry.

I'm disappointed that Zondervan is closing the book on the TNIV, so to speak. I was just about to switch over to it.

I've been reading, teaching, and doing other ministry using the NIV since 1977. It can't be too difficult to see that English usage has changed from then to now -- can it?

Where I live and serve, over the last 9 years our cultural context has changed, and with it, my regard for the NIV. A lot of the people I serve now are pre-Christians and new Christians who come from other countries and cultures far removed from white North America -- these are very intelligent people for whom English is a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th language. I've discovered that in this multicultural context the NIV is frequently embarrassingly obscure -- its translations from the original languages are occasionally annoyingly inaccurate too, but even worse, the English is simply a mess. It's unfortunate, but I often have to clarify the translation -- much more often then I did 25 years ago. Even TNIV can be unnecessarily awkward and obscure at times. I don't like having to do so much clarification, because one doesn't wish to undermine the confidence of new believers in the Biblical text.

I agree with Jaambo ... and I look forward to a much better update in 2011.

which was the "stealth" Bible Olasky referred to -- the TNIV or the NIVi?

As a student leader updating the language of the NIV to make it more modern and readable by teenagers is the more important issue.

How bout some humor here... Will the Urim and Thummim be used in the revision process?

'The TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community'. I think that should read 'the US evangelical community'. It's not true of everywhere the TNIV is used.

To GW, who said: "How bout some humor here... Will the Urim and Thummim be used in the revision process?"

I don't know, but i thought she was pretty good in "Kill Bill".

The literal words versus the words that speak today. This is the same endless debate that happened when the first NIV inclusive translation came out years ago.

One thing missing from all of these posts is the pain and hurt that many women in the church have experienced because the truths of the scripture do not seem to apply to them.The Bible is not a weapon to beat people with, but the liberating good news of Jesus Christ. In any world, women are not "sons," we are daughters and children of God. Years of hearing that God does not value or use women as much as he does men are not over in many of our congregations. I teach at a Christian college and this poison is still as widespread as ever, and our daughters are often not even considering how God may be calling them into his service.

This is a serious issue and one we must consider. The TNIV, while flawed like any translation, is an important tool to help all of our young people hear and respond to their kingdom callings.
The TNIV strikes a fine balance between

Good one Jt. Oprah might be used as well. For some background date here is the scoop in the background of the term Urim and Thummim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim_(Latter_Day_Saints)
And no I am not a Mormon.

God is the one who put the specific gender references in the Bible, not man. If you don't like his choices you should talk to him about why he made them, not try to change his words. God described himself as a Father for a reason. Instead of rebelling against what he has spoken, you should submit to our gracious loving omniscient God.

While reading through the comments here I am struck by the fact that we live in the time of "Every Man For Himself Bible Versions". Most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God, and with every new version to come down the pike the number of true Bible believers is less and less with every passing day.

For a description and examples of this Every Man For Himself mentality see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/everyman.html

By His sovereign grace, believing the Book,

Will Kinney

Prior to the publication of the TNIV, I thought the best overall translation (reconizing that all translations have their problems) was the NRSV. Since the publication of the TNIV, I have used it consistantly in my preaching and teaching. I am saddened and disappointed that Zondervan will discontinue its publication of the TNIV - a translation that I not only preached and teached with but one also in which I purchased copies for new Christians.

Supposedly, Zondervan has made this decision to reconcile with those Evangelicals alienated by the publication of the TNIV. But who will Zondervan alienate by its discontinuance?

Grace and peace,

Rex

I find the story regarding updating TNIV/NIV and the related comments interesting. I for one gave up reading NIV years ago (too bland for me, compare for one example John 1:16, receiving "one blessing after another," to the more traditional renderings of receiving "grace upon grace" from His fulness; or in Ps. 23, "love" will follow me all the days of my life; and there are others). But what strikes me is the oft-times virulence and the attacking of one camp's motives by the other. Surely we can disagree and have different preferences without attacking eachother. Why not let each man or woman read the version they prefer? Or should I say that "he" prefers? As the old saying goes, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." Contrary to the assertions of some, I am not aware of one major doctrine that hinges on this issue. Even the late great inerrantist, conservative scholar Harold Lindsell in his Harper Study Bible notes states that there should be tolerance on the issue of gender roles in the church since Christians have long disagreed.

Reading the comments carefully, it's obvious that the editors aren't calling the gender language in the TNIV a mistake. Rather, they admit the way they presented it to the public (marketing strategy) was the mistake. On that, I agree. I will be seeking a new TNIV in the very near future.

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not........

God hasn't changed and neither has his Word. Society has changed and fallen further away from God. The whole "make a better Bible" movement is driven by one thing.....MONEY

When there is an ambiguity in the original text, a translator should leave that ambiguity in the translated text. That way, the modern reader will wrestle with the same ambiguity that the original readers would have faced. Otherwise, the translator is inserting his interpretive judgment into the translation, without the reader's knowledge. The translator's interpretive judgment is being mingled with inspired scripture as though it was also inspired. Doing this borders on deceit, and it results in a version that cannot be trusted.

I agree with the user Eric Ragle above.
The NIV publishers are in it just for the money as well as a bias to perverse3 the TRUE word of God.

The NIV and all like it are crap and belong in the garbage can.

The NIV was biased and two homosexuals were directly involved.
Don't believe me, go search and you will see.

The publisher of the NIV also publishes a UNISEX Bible to appease the feminists who were offended that God is a "he" and they also publish the Satanic Bible and books like "the joy of gay sex" promoting homosexuality.

You will not find the word HELL in the old testament of the NIV. instead you will find "grave"

You will not find the word Sodomite. Instead you find the phrase "Male Prostitute" to change the entire context of God's law.

You will not find about 15 IMPORTANT verses such as Prayer and Fasting in the book of Mathew and in Acts when Jesus says you must believe on him before you are saved and baptized, the NIV and all the likes removed that verse too.

I challenge all of you who claim to be Christian to do the research. You will be shocked, and mad at the same time for being duped.

Most new churches read from the corrupted NIV.
The Not-Inspired-Version.

Satan has been hard at work this last century.

Sorry, it wasn't Eric Ragel I was reading from before.
It seems that the name of the posters are separated by a line making it misleading who posted what comment.

But the first name is correct still, being Eric on Oct 2nd.

Alan, I am so glad I finally read a comment like yours on this thing!!!! In case everyone is wondering...the bible is written in ENGLISH...no translation needed! It is called the King James Bible! Could someone PLEASE point out the mistakes in the KJB? Yes, there are some mistakes, however, these mistakes are made by the people we read about,such as Eve eating of the fruit. It amazes me to see all the churches that will continue to use the niv after the very creators are stating that they made a mistake...HEllo? niv churches, you are basing your foundation on a MISTAKE?? Just go get God's word...the KING JAMES BIBLE!

Important one...
I know the author's view and so I could not wait to get my hands on the book. This book is certainly well written easy reading and very accessible.