I assume most people realize that Today's New International Version (TNIV), released in complete form in 2005, is an update to the New International Version (NIV). Therefore, I'm not going to spend much time on history. Further, I realize that there's still an air of controversy surrounding the TNIV. And I also knew that when I selected it as the #2 choice in my picks of favorite that I would raise a few eyebrows in some of the circles with which I interact. The fact that there's controversy at all saddens me. Personally, I believe the TNIV to be a very good evangelical translation of the Bible, and I honestly think that any controversy is overblown. The fact that I can list the HCSB--a translation that meets the Colorado Springs Guidelines--as my #1 pick and then I can turn around and list a Bible that does not meet those guidelines as #2 demonstrates my personal belief that there is room for both of these kinds of translations, and that they can both find use and purpose in the Kingdom of God.

In light of my willingness to use the TNIV, I believe it's only fair to describe here why I would be open to the use of a gender-inclusive translation--or as the TNIV translators call it, a gender-accurate version. Further, as I was looking at Wayne Leman's TNIV links page in comparison with his HCSB links page, I was reminded how much has been written in response to this new translation of the Bible. In fact, so much has been written regarding the TNIV, it's somewhat overwhelming. Therefore, I believe this is a good time to remind readers of my blog that my purpose in this series is not to provide exhaustive analysis of any of these versions. That has been done elsewhere by others more qualified than me. This series is merely my subjective take on a small sample of the large number of Bible translations in print, specifically ones that have been meaningful to me or have been used by me in one manner or another.

Why I find value in a "gender-accurate" translation. A month or so ago, a friend of mine (you know who you are) asked my opinion regarding a potential new Bible purchase. He was especially interested in all the recent translations that have surfaced over the past few years and thought I might have some insights. We discussed the positives and negatives of a number of them, but when I brought up the TNIV, he very quickly held up his hand and said, "I'm not interested in any of that Father-, Mother-God stuff." To say that there's a huge amount of misunderstanding regarding the TNIV's use of inclusive language would be an understatement. Even more disconcerting is that my friend is seminary-trained with a Master of Divinity degree. If he's been influenced with such disinformation, what does that say for the average Bible reader?

I suppose my first experience with an inclusive language translation was the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) published in 1989. Although I bought a copy, I did not use it all that much. However, when the first edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) was released in 1996, every student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was given a copy. A number of the faculty members at SBTS (at that time) had a hand in this translation, including Daniel I. Block, Robert Stein, Gerald Borchert, and Thomas R. Schriener. I immediately read through the NLT over the next few months, and also introduced it to my wife, Kathy, who uses it to this day as her preferred translation. Looking back, the inclusive gender issue in the NLT, and the NRSV before it, was not all that controversial--at least in my experience and in my circles. However, that changed in regard to the inclusive NIV (often referred to as the NIVI) released in Britain with plans for eventual release in the United States. There was a major uproar over this. I well remember reading the World Magazine "stealth Bible" issue. I ordered an NIVI from WH Smith, which at that time was billed as the Amazon.com of Great Britain, paying in the end about $40 for a text copy after international shipping was applied. Although I don't remember all the particulars now, in examining the inclusive NIV, I felt that it was actually more conservative in its approach to inclusive language than the NLT had been. What was all the fuss about?

To this day, I still don't quite get what all the fuss is about. Inclusive language has not been applied to God in any of these versions. Rather, when the audience or subject of a passage includes both males and females, an attempt has been made to make sure the translation reflects that in its language. For instance, it has long been noted that a Greek word like ἀδελφοί (adelphoi), often used by Paul in his letters and traditionally translated "brothers," also included women. Even more conservative recent translations such as the English Standard Version often acknowledge this in the footnotes with the comment "Or brothers and sisters" (see notes for Rom 8:12, 1 Cor 1:10, Gal 3:15, etc. in the ESV). Of course, part of the difficulty is that our language is changing. At one time words like "brothers," "men," and even pronouns like "he" and "him" could refer to both genders, but as a culture we have begun to move away from this. And sometimes it seems very much like a common sense issue. If you have two male siblings and two female siblings and you all have dinner together, would you say, "I ate dinner with my brothers"? Of course not. Some will counter that universals such as "brothers" or "men" in the Bible should be understood as referring to both sexes if the context warrants it, but could one then make the case that such use requires that the reader must then mentally translate meaning from a text to really understand it?

To be fair, the Colorado Springs Guidelines (which were originally drawn up in response to the NIVI) allow for quite a bit of inclusive language. If the context warrants it, translators may render ἄνθρωποι (anthropoi) as "people" instead of "men," τις (tis) may become "any one" instead of "any man," and pronouns such as οὐδεὶς (oudeis) can be translated "no one" rather than "no man." Why then do masculine 3rd person pronouns have to remain so in translation if the context clearly warrants a broader meaning? Many have noted, too, that certain Latin-derivative languages such as French and Spanish don't run into this problem in their translations because they have neuter pronouns that are used in reference to persons.

Further, I don't understand why the TNIV has received so much criticism for its use of gender-inclusive language when I don't remember the same amount of criticism anchored against the NLT, the NRSV, the Message, or even the second edition of of the Good News Bible, all of which employ gender-inclusive language for humans to one degree or another. And why would a bookstore chain not carry the TNIV when it carries these other versions? In fact, my copy of the NRSV that I bought in 1990 was published by Holman Bibles. Nor do I feel that it's fair to accuse the TNIV translators of trying to emasculate the Bible. Are scholars such as Douglas Moo and Bruce Waltke (both of whom are among the TNIV translators) really trying to feminize God's Word? I seriously doubt it.

I won't deny the fact that as someone with a degree in English, I was initially resistant to the changes we are witnessing in our language. What helped me on both an academic and an ecclesiastical level was D. A. Carson's Book, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. This book was written in response to the controversy over the NIVI, and although I wish Carson would update it for the TNIV, his arguments are still applicable. To familiarize myself with both sides of the argument, I've also read Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress' The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy. In the end, I'm more persuaded by Carson's line of thought.

In my opinion, this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. With endorsements of the TNIV from D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo (a translator), Darrell Bock, John Stott, Philip Yancy, Tremper Longman III, Klyne Snodgrass, Timothy George, Lee Strobel, Craig Blomberg, and a host of others, no one can make the case that embracing the TNIV is a theologically left-wing move. Nor is this a Complementarian vs. Egalitarian issue because many of the supporters of the TNIV are Complementarians. Ultimately, this is a difference in translation philosophy, primarily word-for-word translations vs. meaning- or thought-driven translations. Differences of opinion in this regard are fair enough, but accusations against the motives of those who translated or support the TNIV seem uncalled for.

I do have one main reason for finding value in the use of a "gender-accurate" translation and it came from my five years experience teaching high school students. From 2000 to 2005 I served as chaplain and Bible teacher at a private Christian prep school. Three, maybe four years ago, I was teaching a sophomore class (15-year-olds) an Old Testament survey. While studying creation, one day we read Genesis 1:27, probably in the NIV.

Genesis 1:27
NIV	TNIV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.	So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

A female student in the back of the class raised her hand and made the comment, "Mr. Mansfield, I didn't know women were made in God's image!" I stared at her incredulously.

"What?" I asked.

"I didn't know that women were made in God's image until I saw the second half of this verse. All I've ever heard is that 'MAN is made in God's image.'"

I still couldn't believe what I was hearing. Was she kidding or serious? Was she just not the sharpest tack in the box? So I asked the rest of the class, "How many of you thought only men were made in God's image?" At least a third of the class (of probably around 24 or so students) raised their hands, and most of them were young ladies.

You should also know regarding this school that in general, these were very smart kids. They always ranked in the top five schools of the county in regard to their test scores, including the public schools. I was amazed that these sharp kids wouldn't realize that when they heard "Man is made in God's image" that it referred to both males and females. Unfortunately, our language has changed. We can't take for granted anymore that everyone--especially those in younger generations--understands masculine universals. Can you imagine what it did to these young ladies' concept of self to think that their male peers were made in God's image, but they were not? Such misunderstandings are extremely disturbing to me.

And that's the issue--this is a misunderstanding based on language. We already have the task of bridging God's Word across language and culture. My greatest concern is that we can communicate the Bible clearly and effectively. It doesn't matter if personally I would tend to be a bit conservative in my use of language. It doesn't matter if my preference in Bibles is a formal equivalent version. What's important is that my audience with whom I'm trying to teach God's Word doesn't have any extra impediment to their hearing the Gospel message. They need to hear it clearly and effectively in language, words, and terms that they understand.

Why I Like the TNIV. In 1993, D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge published a great little book called Letters Along the Way. This book is a collection of fictional letters spanning over a decade's time between a seasoned Christian professor, Paul Woodson (a combination of Carson's and Woodbridge's names) and a fairly new believer, Timothy. In one of the early letters, supposedly written in December of 1978, Dr. Woodson makes a comment to Timothy regarding what then would have been a newly published New International Version:

I read through the NIV New Testament when it came out a few years ago and resolved then that I would switch to the NIV when the whole Bible became available. It still feels very strange to me, but I am convinced we must use twentieth-century language to win twentieth-century people. I do not know what Bible you are using, But I do urge you to buy a modern translation.

This statement, merely by itself would be applicable to the TNIV (and to be fair, a number of modern translations). But listen to what the real Dr. Carson has said in support of the TNIV:

The TNIV is more accurate than its remarkable predecessor, the much-loved NIV, while retaining all the readability of the latter. I am deeply impressed by the godliness, linguistic competence, cultural awareness and sheer fidelity to Scripture displayed by the translators. Thirty or forty years from now, I suspect, most evangelicals will have accepted the TNIV as a ‘standard’ translation, and will wonder what all the fuss was about in their parents’ generation--in the same way that those of us with long memories marvel at all the fuss over the abandonment of "thees" and "thous" several decades ago.

Why do I like the TNIV? I like it (and support it) because I agree with Dr. Carson that it has great potential to become a standard translation not only in this generation, but perhaps even in the one to come. I believe that it will speak to a contemporary audience just as the NIV did over the past two and a half decades.

I'll be honest: I never completely bonded with the NIV--probably from my infatuation with the New American Standard Bible for so many years (to be detailed in the next post). However, I really like the TNIV the more I read it and use it. Some have said that the changes made to it (excluding the gender-inclusive issues) have actually made it a bit more literal than the NIV, and I've wondered if perhaps this is why I've warmed to it as I have. Regardless, it is still extremely readable and as mentioned above, I believe it has the best chance of speaking to American culture in the days to come.

A number of significant changes (beyond gender issues) have been made in the TNIV distinguishing it from the NIV. David Dewey, in his book A User's Guide to Bible Translations, notes the following improvements:

There are small alterations that make the TNIV more precise and generally crisper than the NIV. Some of these remove remaining archaisms; for example, Mary is said to be "pregnant" rather than "with child"; the "sixth hour" becomes "noon"; and the vocative "O" (as in "O Lord") is omitted. Others relate to advances in scholarship and the understanding of technical expressions. So for instance, the "basic principles" of the world become "elemental spiritual forces" (Col 2:8). "Christ" often becomes "Messiah" where this functions as a title; "saints" often becomes "people of God"; and "the Jews" becomes "Jewish leaders" where this is the sense ... One survey suggests that of all the changes made, other than those relating to gender, three out of four move the TNIV toward "a more essentially literal rendering" in comparison with the NIV.

I keep stumbling upon changes made in the wording as well. Note the differences in Phil 3:8--

Philippians 3:8
NIV	TNIV
What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ	What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ

Besides the minor alterations ("compared" becomes "because"; "greatness" becomes "worth") note the Greek word σκύβαλον (skubalon), which carries a fairly crude meaning in the original, is updated from "rubbish" to "garbage." This is certainly more natural language. In my entire life, I don't think I've ever personally known anyone who used the word "rubbish." I don't even think it was widely used in the U.S. in the seventies when the NIV first came out. More than likely, "rubbish" was probably thought of as more suitable for a Bible translation than a word like "garbage."

The other day, I stumbled across Prov 4:23:

Proverbs 4:23
NIV	TNIV
Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.	Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.

Now, granted, "wellspring of life" is certainly more poetic, but how well does it communicate to a contemporary readership? The newer reading in the TNIV leaves very little to question.

Concerns regarding the TNIV. Overall, because I believe the TNIV is an improvement over the NIV, and because I believe it fulfills the purposes its translators had for it, I don't have a whole lot of issues to complain about. What bothered me in the NIV, still bothers me in the TNIV, and that is primarily its simplified language. But that has more to do with me than the version itself. I'm assuming that the TNIV, like the NIV, is on or about a seventh grade reading level (the national average). This was done on purpose and word choices are made accordingly.

The TNIV, like the NIV before it makes minor interpretive choices for the reader that I don't always care for:

Proverbs 5:7
HCSB	TNIV
for we walk by faith, not by sight—	We live by faith, not by sight.

In the above example, there's a wonderful metaphor in the Bible in which one's life is compared to a journey. This is found throughout both testaments, and especially in Paul. There's nothing inaccurate in the TNIV to state "we live" instead of "we walk," but I've always felt something was lost in that translational/interpretational choice.

I've stated before elsewhere, that if I were a translation editor, I would be slightly more conservative than most gender-inclusive translations by leaving messianic prophecies referring to Jesus in their traditional form. Note for example Psalm 34:20, which is quoted in John 19:36:

NIV	TNIV
he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. (Psalm 34:20)	he protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken. (Psalm 34:20)
These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” (John 19:36)	These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” (John 19:36)

The use of inclusive language blurs the prophetic nature of the passage. In my opinion, the choice to alter a verse like this is a distraction and brings unnecessary criticism to the TNIV. I've heard the opposing viewpoint--that an Old Testament passage needs to be treated in its own context, and I respect that. But I also read the OT as a Christian, and it's exactly these kinds of verses that root Christ throughout the Scriptures. I'm also aware that many quotations are slightly different anyway because most often the NT writers tend to quote the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew Scriptures; but again, I would leave such passages alone if I were running the committee.

From a grammatical standpoint, one of the most controversial aspects of the TNIV's implementation of inclusive language is the use of plural pronouns for singular antecedents. This is in keeping with the way we informally speak, but technically it's a grammatical error. Let me demonstrate with Rev 3:20 by using the original NIV, an early inclusive attempt in the NRSV, and then the TNIV:

Revelation 3:20
NIV	NRSV	TNIV
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.	Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me.	Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.

What you'll notice in the original NIV is that "him" and "he" are both singular pronouns for the singular antecedent "anyone." The NRSV in its attempt to be inclusive of males and females, changes from third person to second person with the use of "you." One could ask if a certain amount of meaning is lost in the NRSV by changing "anyone" to "you." Typical of the TNIV solution to this dilemma, the third person is retained, but note that "them" and "they" are plural and do not agree in person with the singular antecedent, "anyone."

Now, if it took you a minute to catch this, it's because we tend to naturally talk this way. Most of the time, we often avoid specifying a masculine pronoun in our speech when referring to an inclusive antecedent. However, by all modern English grammars with which I'm familiar, this is still incorrect English. I actually even used this as a teaching tool in a writing class recently.

And yet, having said all that, I'm aware--as I've said earlier--that our language is changing. It won't surprise me if in a decade or so major grammar guides begin to allow this mixing of person. Like I said--we already do it in informal speech. Yet it was still a bit shocking for someone like me who has taught writing on and off for a decade when I first saw it. And I've told my students that until I see such usage accepted in a grammar book, I'll still mark it off on their papers!

In regard to marketing, the TNIV came out with a pretty strong push, albeit much was defensive in nature due to the controversy; however, much now has died off. There is a TNIV blog, like the ESV blog, but it has not been updated since last December. In February, I left a comment at the TNIV website asking if there would be future blog entries. An unnamed person responded by saying there hadn't been anything new recently to add to the blog, but there would be forthcoming product announcements in the upcoming weeks. However, as of this writing, nothing new has materialized. I can't imagine that there's nothing to blog about in regard to the TNIV. Like I said of the HCSB, they could learn a lesson from the ESV Blog in this matter. They could put ME in charge of their blog, and I could give them three or four TNIV related entries a week!

The other complaint I've had about TNIV marketing is the lack of Bible covers that don't look like they were designed for a teenager. Although I finally found one, it's difficult to find a simple one-color leather Bible currently in the TNIV. However, there are some very nice leather editions available from Cambridge Bibles in the U.K. Unfortunately these will not be sold by Cambridge in the U.S. (I inquired) because of agreements with Zondervan. There are also currently no major study Bibles available in the TNIV, although the TNIV version of the classic NIV Study Bible is set to be released this Fall.

Finally, the greatest hindrance to the acceptance of the TNIV may not be the controversy over gender-accuracy; nor is it competition from other new translations of the Bible such as the ESV or HCSB. Instead, it's the NIV itself. Personally, I believe that the International Bible Society made a mistake when they promised to keep selling the NIV as long as there was a demand for it. I know that there was pressure from those opposed to the TNIV for the IBS and Zondervan to make this move. However, I would guess that the real factor is monetary. Anytime one looks at the current sales rankings for Bibles, the New International Version is still at the top. That's not near the top, but the very top. The NIV has become the new KJV.

IBS & Zondervan could learn a thing or two from Tyndale Press. When they released the New Living Translation, they moved quickly to phase out the original Living Bible. In fact, as far as I know, the only copy of the Living Bible still in print is the old standard green hardback. Zondervan should do the same thing and keep only a text edition or two of the NIV in print. I'm sure it was very costly for Tyndale to discontinue it's Life Application Bible with the Living Bible text as this had been a huge seller. However, such moves were necessary to move onto a better text. Realistically, though, I don't expect Zondervan to make such a move. The NIV so far outsells other translations, the immediate loss of revenue would be great, even if it was helpful in the long run for gaining acceptance of the TNIV.

How I use the TNIV. I've been using the TNIV with groups that tend to be in settings outside of church. In a Bible study at church, I might have 45 minutes to walk a group through twenty verses, but I don't always have that luxury in other settings. When using the Bible devotionally such as with my night classes that I teach at IWU, I find that the TNIV makes a natural choice. I also used it when I spoke before graduating high school seniors a couple of weeks ago.

What edition of the TNIV I primarily use. I finally found a one-color leather edition of the TNIV. I'm using a TNIV Thinline XL (Larger Print Edition, ISBN: 031093494X). It's black, bonded leather with silver trim. It's not perfect, but it feels good in the hand and has a readable typeface. Like all thinlines, text on other pages can be seen too easily through the paper.

For further reading (links to a variety of opinions regarding the TNIV may be found below):
• Wikipedia Article on the TNIV
• TNIV Website
• About the TNIV
• TNIV Endorsements
• Wayne Leman's TNIV Links Page
• Better Bibles Blog TNIV Page (again, note especially the comments)
• Bible Researcher TNIV Page
• CBMW TNIV Resource Center

• Follow-Up Regarding the TNIV (Added 6/7/06)

Redacted June 3, 12 PM.
Proofed June 4, 6 PM.

---

Of Related Interest:
- Follow-Up Regarding the TNIV
- My Review of Zondervan's TNIV Study Bible

Tags: TNIV, Top Ten