Talk:Today's New International Version/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Grudem/Strauss debate

I removed 2 paragraphs, and 5 references, on the Grudem/Strauss debate, and put the debate in the external links instead. I removed the 1st para because it was about one error by Grudem, rather than the debate in general. I removed the second para, and the refs, because (a) they were about the ESV not the TNIV, (b) they were blogs, so not particularly WP:Reliable Sources, and (c) they don't support the argument that the ESV is gender neutral. While the ESV translates "man" as "person" on a few occasions, it is very obviously not a gender neutral translation. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Supporters and critics section

There are many, many more supporters and critics of the TNIV than can be listed at this article (though a List article for both just might be helpful). The seriousness of the criticism—due to numbers and stature of critics and in the tone of their criticism—is clear from the many statements of supporters that cite this criticism and address it.

The criticism is very specific: gender-neutral language. It extends beyond the TNIV. Historically, the TNIV is simply a "test-case", and related to the high regard the NIV "branding" has among evangelicals. In the view of the critics, the TNIV is more than a revision of the NIV, because it embraces language considered by many to be ideologically motivated.

These are the things that should shape what is documented at this page. If you ask me, I think it would be unfair to the TNIV article to say too much about the whole issue. Its critics criticise it for something that is much worse in other translations. The critics criticise only because the original NIV was broadly a version for and by evangelicals. The change to gender neutral language has shown that evangelicals are divided on that issue, some considering it a matter essential to the faith of Christianity itself.

What would be unacceptable, imo, at this article is either:

• an extended Criticism section regarding GN language at TNIV which would actually be even more applicable to other versions; or
• an extended Support section, downplaying the huge numbers involved in the criticism, and not even mentioning what their criticism is.

At the moment the article errs in the direction of the latter. Is the reader told

• what critics criticise?
• the relative sizes of the denominations mentioned?
• the publications and positions of the leading critics?

If one is a supporter of the TNIV, this is bad strategy. One of the explicit reasons people support the TNIV is that it courageously, if you like, goes ahead with GN language despite very strong opposition on this point. Given that probably a majority of institutions and individuals in broader society will have much more sympathy with the TNIV than its critics, exposing their view, and who they are, is actually helpful for the cause.

The NPOV approach is best for all parties and mandatory at Wiki anyway.

This section is small, we can work on it here in talk. We need to get it right because there's just too many sources out there clamouring to be heard here. Unless we represent them all fairly, the article will be, quite rightly, unstable at this point. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no way the TNIV could be a test case because it is ten years to late. Inclusive language was already in use by most. We use the New Living Translation because English is a second language to most people in our Church. It used Human Beings, Brother/Sister before TNIV was released. The TNIV has fallen off the sales charts in the west. The New Living Translation is now #2 best seller. It was issued in 1996 while full TNIV was 2005 and almost ten years behind. It used the language the TNIV 'adopted'.

The critics target a second rate translation that is not selling, while the major inclusive language translation is now #2 best seller. :=) ha ha AbubakarB (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New Testament for gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender

I removed this edit.

"The stronger form of argument is that grammatical gender is not dependent upon biological gender. Such an argument for example is employed by Dr Ann Nyland in her preface to her New Testament Translation, using the Holy Spirit as an example, which is neuter in the New Testament and feminine in the Old Testament . Nyland leaves out the fact, that the Old and New Testaments differ in their original languages, and the fact that Greek and Hebrew have gender systems that differ from one another and from English. However the argument about language and biological gender becomes redundant when pronouns and pronominal affixes refer to human beings, where the grammatical gender usually matches the biological gender (sex) of the referents. The gender of a pronoun (standing in for the noun) should be determined by the gender of the noun upon which it depends."

This was a recent edit added by 89.241.170.66 and it confused me why it was added. It seems like it should be its own topic. It is unclear to me what this has to do with the TNIV translation.

AbubakarB (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to delete it myself. It simply restates the inclusive language argument which was already there, except using confusing language and an obscure author. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was scared to move that. It seems like people always want to fight on inclusive language. We had a big fight about this in our Church. Maybe the original editor will put it back in. ;-) AbubakarB (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dinner party

This statement was entered for Revelation 3:20.

"The masculine singular in the original Greek depicts Jesus eating with an individual at a private home, not joining a dinner party"

They can be singular and plural. It is common western English.!? Who said dinner party? AbubakarB (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're describing the problem of inclusive plurals perfectly—at the very least, they can be interpreted as either plural or singular. Another word for that is ambiguous. The Greek is not ambiguous. It is often possible to be gender inclusive and not ambiguous.

"If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me."

"If anyone hears ... and eat with that one, and that one with me."

In fact, often in Greek, demonstratives are used where English would prefer pronouns. As it turns out, these are marked for gender too in Greek, but English never marks demonstratives for gender, easy solution! Ekeinos (that male one, in Greek) simply becomes "that" or "that one" in English (in most cases), often it does need to be "that man", because the context tells us which person the "that one" is pointing at—it might be a Roman centurion, a Jewish leader, a man sick of the palsy and so on.

You could always consider just removing the criticism of GN language, who needs it, they're just wrong. ;)

The smart move is always to leave bad arguments from the opposition in the text. It makes them look as silly as they are. ;)

Alastair Haines (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Both ways read fine. Neither is ambiguous, but that is to me. I do not use the TNIV so it does not matter. I am moving on. AbubakarB (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Them & Group

This statement was entered by Australian. FYI, your English may not be the same as North American English (Canada/USA).

"Again, the masculine singular in the original depicts Father and Son drawing and raising each individual personally, rather than dealing with people as a group."

"If John/Lisa is looking for me, tell them I'll be back soon."

Them is also singular and plural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbubakarB (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The example was not mine, but if the English confused me (and the original poster), then the English might be confusing. ;)

The first part of the sentence is easy to source, it speaks about the original, the Greek is online, and so are many translations that use the singular form. Can we at least permit this part.

"Again, the masculine singular in the original depicts Father and Son drawing and raising each individual personally."

Our disagreement is about "rather than dealing with people as a group."

Perhaps we could modify it to say, "rather than dealing with people as a group, as some silly Australian preachers might understand it."

More seriously we could clarify the point being made by critics as, "rather than dealing with people as a group, as some may read it."

Is that being fair to the critics? At the moment you've removed the critics' point of view. It might be wrong, but is that their view?

What do you think of: "rather than dealing with people as a group, as some may read it."

Masalema Alastair Haines (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We just had this fight in our Church. They and them can be singular which I was not sure if you knew. Some state it cannot, usually older peeps. I looked in a couple dictionaries and the older one said nothing about singular usage while a new one does. It looks like it is a language change. That does make sense as it is older 'white' males who are challenging the usage, generational gap it may seem.

I think "rather than dealing with people as a group, as some may read it." is great, please enter! AbubakarB (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)