Stacy has asked for a little further explanation of my issues with all the TNIV opponents.

The NIV is a translation of the Word of God. It is NOT the Word of God itself. The NIV (along with the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, etc.) are all full of linguistic compromises, shortcomings, and downright errors. That’s the nature of translations. People try their best to express thoughts recorded in a different time, in a different language in a way that’s both understandable in modern English and also true to the authors’ original intent. There is never a perfect translation. It simply doesn’t exist.

I have no problem if people have their favorite translations. That’s great. That’s clearly a taste issue. Like I said in my original post, I’d encourage everyone to use multiple translations in order to get a variety of points of view. Each translation will bring something different to your understanding. I also should stick in a plug for learning Greek and Hebrew so you can read the Bible in its original languages, which is really the best way to capture the original syntax and grammar. Now, I understand that not everyone can do that, but it’s a better use of time and energy than reading Left Behind. But I digress.

My problems with those people who oppose the TNIV are twofold. First, most of the opposition to the TNIV has been rooted in a suspicion that the translators have been co-opted by feminists and liberals trying to distort the Bible with their own evil theological agenda. There has never been any evidence to support this fact. None of the translators come from liberal or feminist backgrounds. They all come from mainstream, reputable institutions and most have been involved in the NIV translation efforts for many years.

I think it’s dishonest and troubling that in an effort to shutdown the TNIV, James Dobson and others are making false allegations that are without any merit. If you dislike the way the TNIV renders the original text, that’s fine. But don’t read more into it than is really there. I think it’s really troubling to use the phrase “unbiblical” to describe the translation.

Further, I have no problem if you have problems with some of the decisions that the translation committee made when it came to rendering gender in certain passage. I think in some cases, they made good decisions, and in other cases, made bad decisions. That’s the way Bible translation is done. You have to weigh a number of priorities when working on a project like this. Inevitably, you are going to make someone upset.

Is the TNIV the best possible translation? Maybe, but maybe not. It’s simply another version that attempts to address changes in language that have happened in recent years. I think that’s one of the problems here. Those who support the NIV in its 1984 revision and object to any changes are living in denial. The English language constantly evolves, for better or for worse.

Part of the tasks of both IBS and CBT is to get the Bible into the hands of as many people as they can. That means being sensitive to the cultural context that those people come from, which is often different from the cultural context that most evangelicals come from. As a result, a lot of well-intentioned people are going to object to the end result, which is probably the exact response that should be elicited.

If you think there are theological problems with the TNIV, then you are good company with people who think the same thing about the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NASB, CEV, ESV, etc. Anytime a translation is closely scrutinized, people find problems. Again, that’s the nature of translations. Translating the Bible is a lot like making sausage — if you saw how it was done, you probably wouldn’t want any part of it.

But any translation of the Bible is simply a human rendering of a divinely inspired text — nothing more, nothing less. Changing, updating, revising, or altering that text does not make it more or less the Word of God.

If you like th TNIV, then buy it and use it. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it. But please do not try to shade the motivations of the translators or publisher as anything that they really aren’t.