Stacy Harp has responded to my original reply on the issue of the TNIV.

Let me take a few minutes to cover some of her points.

First, I made the claim that the NIV translation (and all translations) are not the Word of God itself. Stacy disagrees:

While I understand where Marcus is coming from, I wholeheartedly disagree with his point about this translation NOT being the Word of God. It is the Word of God. I’ve heard it said, “That the bible doesn’t contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God” , so how can it be a translation of something that Marcus claims it isn’t? That isn’t logical.

I’ll clarify my statement a bit. I agree that the Bible is the Word of God. But then we have to ask, what do we mean when we say “the Bible”? When we speak, for example, of the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible, what are we talking about? Most theologians would agree that we’re talking about the original manuscripts when we speak in those terms. I’d argue that the NIV is a translation of the Word of God. Any translation is riddled with errors, shortcomings, and cultural compromises. The task of the translator is to take the texts that exist — and there are no original texts available to them and those that do exist have a number of variations — and do their best, with the aid of the Holy Spirit to choose the words that best express the Word of God in the time and place that the text is being translated.

I think a major problem with evangelicals today is that they elevate the Bible to a level that it doesn’t belong. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to minimize the importance of Scripture, but I think we need to put it in the proper context of the church. But that’s an entire side issue.

Stacy further accuses me of not taking seriously the objections that many have to the TNIV’s language choices. I’ll plead guilty to that. I really don’t care about their objections simply because I think the same laundry list of problems can be made for ALL translations. Every translation team makes choices. They make those choices for reasons. Usually, those are reasons of trying to best express an idea to the intended audience. Some readers will agree with those choices. Others will not. Welcome to the world of Bible translation. The TNIV is no different in that regard than the KJV, RSV, NASB, etc.

And for every leader and scholar that opposes the TNIV, there’s a whole list of equally qualified scholars supporting it. What can we conclude from this? Is it a matter of orthodoxy versus heresy? Or is it simply a matter of taste? Chocolate versus vanilla, perhaps?

Further, Stacy and those objecting to the TNIV continue to cite a feminist agenda, lurking in the shadows. This is a charge that has yet to be supported with any evidence. I find it appalling and downright insulting to suggest that a committee of scholars are trying to subvert the Bible for some political cause. If it’s true, then where’s the evidence?

None of the translators can be linked to a feminist agenda. They are not liberals and do not come from backgrounds that would suggest they have any biases towards anything other than orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps my biggest problem with all of this is that we waste our time fighting among ourselves on this issue, which takes resources away from more imporant issues of evangelism and discipleship. I really don’t think it matters what kind of Bible translation Zondervan publishes. I really don’t. If that Bible an be used to share Jesus with someone, then I have no problem with it.

I find it ironic that Zondervan has taken out ads in popular publications like Rolling Stone to promote the TNIV. They’re trying to reach young people with the Bible while James Dobson is trying to shout them down.