Talk:Today's New International Version
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article says the New Testament of the TNIV is "scheduled" to be published in April 2001. Can we update this? Has it been published yet?
The TNIV New Testament (ISBN 0310922623) has been published by Zondervan. The Old Testament should be released in 2004 or 2005. -hoshie
As of February 2005, the full TNIV is available. rae 01:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the assertion that 3/4 of the TNIV's changes are in a more literal direction. Feel free to re-add it when you can cite a source for it! :) raekwon 23:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
TNIN and hoi ioudaioi. I have updated the section referring to translation of Greek hoi ioudaioi as "Jewish leaders" in some contexts in the TNIV, to bring the article more in line with the NPOV of Wikipedia. I cited sources to support the revisions. wleman 03:17, 2 June 2005 (UTC)
I have checked the three external references given. The first is a general list of books, with no specific reference given. The second provides political reasons for the so-called translation, the third is to the American Bible Society, which justifies why it has translated the term "the Jews" as "the Jewish Leaders". The example given of the Fox in relation to Herod[1], meaning small and weak, as opposed to sly, can be dealt with by a marginal note (a small weak creature) in the text. To use this reference is like asking a thief to act as a character witness to a person accused of thieving! When the redactor of John wrote "the Jews" - he had available to him the word "Leader" and could have written "Jewish Leaders". Whilst some scholars (for example Willis Barnstone) feel that an ur-John text (pre-finished Gospel) did not use hoi Ioudaioi as an operative term, the New Testament writings as we have received them do have this term. It can be acknowledged that the phrase hoi Ioudaioi in John and the Acts owes itself to the divisions between Synagogue and Church. Never-the-less the words in the text are hoi Ioudaioi - the Jews. David Burke makes this observation;
"The problem is not how well the English locution reflects the Greek text or the escalating polemical realities of the first century situation, but rather its effect on the (poorly informed) modern reader" [2].
Burke's article is well worth a read. If anti-Semitism had not been a problem over the centuries, I suspect that the term would be rendered "the Jews". However the complexities of understanding the devisions of Synagogue and Church and its impact upon the text, the use of the definite article (the) which is suggestive that all Jews were involved, coupled with anti-Semitism, have forced translators to interpret the text, rather than provide a straight translation. This should be acknowledged.
I will make a change to the text at some point to reflect this reality. --Osjknights 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Singular "they" "Also, supporters point out that what is claimed as the singular they has a long history in the English language". No examples are supplied either from the KJB or Shakespear - hence the references to KJB and Shakespear removed.
Concrete examples of the critics are supplied from the text.
[edit] Why can't they copyleft bibles?
Lawyers for the New Living Translation and Amplified bibles in particular are hounding the web just like the RIAA. Unlike worldly non-christian music though, isn't the word of god supposed to be spread freely? Why not a copyleft license such as the GFDL (GNU Free doucmentation license) or the CC-by-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). The copyleft is very important. It prevents proprietarization of derivitative works (including shell-wrapping if the copyleft is strong like the GNU-GPL) --GreatInca 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccurate quotation of Acts 7:20
The quotation from Acts 7:20 TNIV "he was cared for in his Parent’s home" seems to be incorrect. The correct version, from the TNIV website [3], is "he was cared for in his parents' home". (I know I am not supposed to take text from another website, but how else can I prove that this is inaccurate?) The misplaced apostrophe completely loses the point in the context which is that TNIV has changed a singular to a plural here. And capitalising "Parent" suggests that TNIV has made this into a reference to God, which of course it has not. Peterkirk 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
