The Battle for the Bible

In response to the announcment of the forthcoming revision of the NIV and the death of the TNIV, he says unequivocally:

“I’m delighted to see they have realized the TNIV was simply never going to be accepted by the Christian public who value accuracy in translating the word of God. I’m thankful for their honesty.”

Rubbish!  The only Christian public who was refusing the TNIV was you and your cronies Mr. Grudem. 

When did the CBT or Zondervan say the TNIV was an inaccurate translation?  This can be none other than a narcissitic view of the matter at hand – when one can only see things from one’s own point of view it makes it hard for one to see or think sensibly.  He only thinks they admitted to inaccuracy when nothing is further from the truth.  This is a shameful response. 

This is why I am beginning to wonder if there is going to be a new Battle for the Bible, only in this regard instead of the issue of inerrancy (which may still be going on in some senses) the battle will be for the dominant translation philosophy and the supposed proper way to translation the Holy Scriptures.  Perhaps the battle is already waging and the death of the TNIV is so far its greatest casualty? 

What say you?


9 responses to “The Battle for the Bible

  1. I see Lig Duncan and Al Mohler‘s interventions as attempts to head off a new battle by implicitly rebuking those like Grudem who might rush out with “reckless talk” lacking “rigor and charity”, when they should instead “communicate [their] concerns respectfully, candidly, and directly to the Committee on Bible Translation, to Zondervan, and to Biblica”.

  2. Actually, I heard a radio interview recently that had a Zondervan rep mention that they had some issues with the TNIV’s accuracy (and the NIVi’s)… but they didn’t say what the problems were. I kind of wish they would have.

    But I’m on the other side of the ocean on translation theory, though it is far more minor of an issue for me 🙂


  3. Zondervan had issues with TNIV’s accuracy? That’s bizarre . . .

    That comment (the Christian public who value accuracy in translating the word of God.) irritates me to no end. I’m in the crowd that reads it as one of my primaries. He needs to come out of his cave and talk with some real people who use the TNIV and care about accuracy in translations.

  4. You can only imagine my response! An avid reader/defender of the TNIV for over four years – this news really hurt me.

    However, after listening to the question/answer forum this afternoon, and hearing Douglas Moo himself admit that he and CBT are “proud of the TNIV and everything it represented” (see my recent blogpost for the link), perhaps the TNIV will be reborn (though modified) in the NIV 2011. Until then, I will be using my TNIV (and NRSV and NASB). The Grudemites and Piperites might think that they’ve “won the battle,” so to speak. But I think we’re still “in the war.”

  5. TC, in the mouth of Grudem and friends “essentially literal” means “literal except when it suits our doctrinal presuppositions to depart from literalness” – as is seen by the way ESV is far from literal in its renderings of words meaning “man” and “human being”.

  6. Thanks for the comments – one thing that just occured to me is a big misstatement by Grudem in this quote. He says: “never going to be accepted by the Christian public…”

    What is the problem with this? For the most part a very large percentage of the Christian public had no idea anything about the TNIV or what is was – so how could it not have been accepted by the Christian public? Grudem et al, killed it before it really got enough exposure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s