Were People TOO HARD on the TNIV? 

A large part of the distrust is how Zondervan originally kept its plans for gender neutrality under wraps until World Magazine, hardly a sensational publication, exposed it in March 1997 with its "Stealth Bible" cover story. Zondervan then said it would scrap its plans but moved ahead anyway. Phil Ryken summarized the controversy in an article on Tenth Presbyterian's website in Oct '97 and made a great point about the now-popular trend toward gender "accuracy" in Bible translations: "Yet this is the way God himself first addressed humanity. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them (Gen 5:1b-2a). Here we see the true equality of men and women. Both the man and the woman were made in the image of God. Yet God proceeds to use the term 'man' to refer to male and female alike. And when they were created, he called them ‘man’ (v. 2b; cf. Gen. 1:26-27). Therefore, using the term 'man' to refer to human beings in general is not a relic from patriarchal times. It is not a human invention at all; it comes from the mouth of God."

I just finished that book by Mark Strauss.. It was really good. It made me look at things differently. The thing that opened my eyes was his chapter on idioms, and how the formal equivalence translations(ESV, NASB95 etc.) mistranslate them. I also just read D A Carsons book on The Inclusive Gender Debate. That was really good as well. As Tim has said in previous videos, since we are used to how words were translated in formal equivalence bibles when we read the CSB or 2011NIV it sounds "wrong". We just aren't used to hearing it that way. I myself have been guilty of that. What gravitates me to the CSB vs the 2011 NIV is when the CSB says "the one", or "person" it mostly retains "he" and "him" while the NIV does not. I have a 1984 NIV Quest Study Bible that I've had for 20 years, and I feel like I'm a traitor if I use something else!!

I never thought I'd see a video on the TNIV more than twenty years after it's release. Good stuff. A lot of the issues of Bible translation are never going to go away even though some of them, like so-called "inclusive language", will hopefully become less prominent over time. People will still argue over contestable terms like "literal" and "word for word" which, ironically, one almost has to understand figuratively for them to make sense. Just check an interlinear and you’ll see what literal gets you! I do think the TNIV was the object of a lot of unfair criticism. For me - and I’m neither young nor liberal - the gender issue is pretty much a non-starter. I think that if people were really honest about how they think and speak they would recognize that the TNIV (and current NIV) did nothing that they don’t do themselves. The use of the so-call singular they goes back centuries so it’s hardly some newfangled accommodation of recent gender ideology. I certainly recall hearing it in the 1980s. If pronouns doing double-duty bothers you try Italian or German. I wonder how many men would feel being politely address as “she” in Italian. :-) Language functions as a set of conventions. Unfortunately, some people think that the conventions they are accustomed to should function as unchanging rules. The Bible isn’t a style manual. Trying to freeze the language in the style of a previous era makes it seem more like a cultural artifact than the living word of God. Words mean what they mean today, not what they meant in 1611 or 1800 or 1950. I cannot remember a time when “brothers” included women. If I said something like, “I have three brothers,” would anyone seriously think it’s possible that included female siblings? I don’t think so. To take an example that has nothing to do with gender but is an example of the way language changes, compare John 8:55 in the American NRSV and the Anglicized version. I suspect most Americans would see nothing odd about the American wording (“if I would say that I do not know him”) whereas to an older generation the Anglicized wording is clearly correct (“if I were to say that I do not know him”). Who’s right? The NRSV (of 1989) clearly reflects the American subjunctive whereas to my older, non-American ears it’s jarring. But if Americans understand it, who am I to enforce a “rule” about it? I like lots of Bible, some of which I have to make more allowances for than others and for different reasons. I prefer the NIV11 above all. Sure, it has limitations but they all do.

Great discussion,Tim: perfect sense of balance. I believe Gordon Fee was involved in the TNIV translation. Any info on Fee,Strauss and the team and its philosophy would be interesting.🌞⭐🌹⭐🌞

Seems to me that the primary benefit of having many translation options is they can serve a variety of purposes. In my mind, the NIV (any year) has lost its place in this regard. The CSB does what the NIV initially tried to do, and ended up doing it better. I think the CSB has truly accomplished nearly everything translations of its kind have tried to do. The CSB has really moved the area of concern to how to manage poetry in a translation of it's kind. And not sure they quite got there with it. If I want something a bit more "free" or dynamic I'm reaching for the NLT. If I'm looking carefully at some different tendious aspects of a specific passage, I'm going for the CSB/NET/NLT with my LSB and Greek NT open. The NIV has became redundant when it "fell behind" other translations that emphasized more worthy aims; it intentionally tangled itself in issues that don't REALLY have relevance when it comes to concerns related to the actual text. The whole "gender neutral/inclusive" controversy is really NOT a textual issue, or even a translation issue. It's "culture controversy" rather than serious concerns over the text. No one here is really foolish enough to be confused when Paul sends greetings to the "brothers." Further, it's a contrived issue as far as text and translation is concerned. There is literally ZERO difference in how Hebrew, Greek and English uses masculine pronouns. And that is a GIFT. Because there are a number of serious issues to face when it comes to translation. We don't need to MAKE UP problems, and reflect our made-up problem in a translation philosophy that will make awkward appearances in the text itself. The older I get, the more I take people's "word for it" when it comes to what they are doing and what they care about. When the NRSV started down the road of dealing with gendered language, the liberals all claimed that none of the fears expressed by conservatives had any warrant. Well, thirty years later we see the outcome of that in the NRSVUE. Now Dr. Carson and Dr. Moo are not theological liberals, but Dr. Metzger wasn't a bad guy, either. Bad ideas often originate with good men who have good intentions. As much as we should all be grateful for the work that comes out of the evangelical academy, it behooves us all to keep our own eyes clear. There is a pretty high degree of pretentiousness that comes along with these so-called "issues" behind this "controversy." There's still a lot of "old" issues that I don't think have been fully worked out: the best ways to communicate the challenges presented by Greek verbs, the best way to present poetry, more precise ways to communicate imagery and many other literary features that are often obscured by the need for translation. These would be areas where I would hope our faithful scholars would spend their energies, and make much of issues ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE TEXT, rather than acquiecing to the fact that the unbeleiving world has become utterly confused over what's behind their zipper. I still use the NIV2011 because it's a popular translation and we have to know what people are reading. But I think they dropped the ball 25 years ago and it can take a long time for that to reflect in bookstore receipts. I do realize that a lot of these translations have many of the same guys on board doing the work. But each translation has a philosophy, decision-making process, series of policies, and goals. The translators work within a large set of parameters. It seems clear to me that the NIV lost it's way a long time ago, and other translations like the NAS, ESV, CSV, NET, and even the NLT, are all superior because they have the RIGHT GOALS and they accomplish them well. And that has squeezed the NIV out of relevance in my mind......people are using it because they "always have" but TIME is all that is needed to show that won't be enough to stay at the top forever.

Preacherman Sage has a video on his channel, "My NIV Rant" and his biggest pet peeve of the NIV is, in his words, "the use of the singular they" I almost left a comment on that video calling him out on his disdain of the NIV, but I held back and bit my tongue. I think, like you said, Tim, is that people were just too harsh on the TNIV. It's almost like some saying that the NLT is a paraphrase because of its lineage with The Living Bible. Great video!

i'd be interested in the history of the TNIV, tim

The legacy of the NIV-1984 carries on today in the CSB.

Don’t forget to discuss New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVi), published in the UK by Hodder & Stoughton. It’s a direct precursor to the TNIV.

I think a big issue with modern translations is when they use inclusive language when the source text actually requires _noninclusive_ language (e.g., most of the time in the Pauline epistles).

I still use the TNIV as my main Bible, and use an old Hodder & Stoughton hardback of it as my carry Bible. I’ve been looking for a copy of this edition of the TNIV at a reasonable cost for years!

I remember Dr. James Dobson using an entire Focus on the Family broadcast to oppose the TNIV.

I actually didn't mind the TNIV. At the time I was just warming up to the NIV '84 [I was and still am an NKJV and NASB '95 guy] and I thought the TNIV would be an interesting supplemental translation. I was not a fan of the decision to take both the TNIV and NIV '84 off the market in order to promote the NIV 'll. I was not a fan of the translation bans. Let the people choose their version without forcing theirs down our throats. Sorry, I still have feelings after all these years.

I grew up with both the KJV and the NIV, but I really enjoy the NIV2011.

Thank you Brother Tim 🌹⭐🌹

Great video Tim

I've been trying to but a TNIV (mine is worn out) but can't find one. (It is my favorite translation.) Where can I get a copy?

Hi Tim I would like more discussion about the TNIV. Thank you very much. God Bless

I’m raising my hand. 🙋🏻‍♀️ I would like to see a video that goes more in-depth about the history of the TNIV.

I appreciated this video, Tim. Thanks. Wasn’t a fan of the TNIV and even now of the NIV2011. Here is the reason why, and it’ll sound stupid. For me, it’s too smooth. I like some of the idiosyncratic phrasings of the ESV (Yoda-speak) and CSB.

I think people are often too hard on any new translation or revision of the Bible. Based on the single example shown in your video, Luke 2:52, I think the TNIV was probably too current; the translation came out when I was in high school and it's my generation's contemporary English, not the contemporary English of my parents or grandparents -- I expect that once my generation are grandparents or great-grandparents the updated NIV will look very like the TNIV (and our own grandchildren will be talking about how the updates will have been too conservative and need to better match *their* contemporary English). I think I've probably mentioned it in the comments of a previous video of yours, but the greatest tragedy of the TNIV never gaining popularity is that the audio Bible based upon it, the Bible Experience, never gained popularity (as most people understandably only look up audio Bibles based on their favorite translations): it's such a great audio Bible! It's a shame it's not more popular.

I thought TNIV meant The Nearly Inspired Version. Sorry I couldn't resist the response based on your comments. 🤔😁

I’m glad that we have multiple translations that take different approaches. Personally I prefer Gender accurate language, because for the longest time, growing up, I thought that brothers literally meant the male population. If the original language referred to both sexes then I would like to know that. Thas just my personal preference. The Bible text you showed about “loose his life” is a perfect example, if it is a generic reference in Greek, then I would personally like my English translation to relent that as well. Simplistically, it’s like the use of the term “guys” in English. Hey Guys to a group, used in person, could refer to both male and female… but just reading it in a written format may feel like it is only referring to men. That I believe is the hard work of Bible translation :)

Interesting video, Tim. Thanks. 1984 NIV (for ease of understanding), RSV (because it "sounds" like a bible is supposed to sound, without the words I don't know and the false friends of the KJV), and 1977 NASB (for literalness) for me.

My concern is that with the gender neutral language in some modern updated translations is that it obscures many of the messianic references in the Old Testament. A lot of the subtleties are just not there in the 2011 NIV, TNIV, or the NASB 2020.

I'd like to hear more of how TNIV came about. The current NIV is one of the best Bibles to me, along with the NASB series starting with the 77 NASB.

Gender inclusive language per se isn't the problem. It's the changing of singular pronouns to plural pronouns for the purpose of trying to be inclusive. Doing so butchers a lot of Messianic references throughout the Bible. There is a view that even Psalm 1 points to Jesus as the only perfect man and tree to which we ought to be grafted into as his branches. Plural pronouns rob the text of such applications. So gender is not really the main issue. The problem are the other grammatical distortions that arise from the forced gender inclusivity. None of us are crying over the generic "man" being changed to "person". But changing "he" to "they" is unacceptable from an accuracy perspective

It’s perfectly understandable why the 1800’s language of the KJV would need to be updated to more modern English after hundreds of years of language change. But think it’s ridiculous for CURRENT day translations to be updated every 7 or 8 years. Why?? Our language is not changing so fast that we can’t understand something written 10 years ago! Good heavens, some of the greatest novels were written over 50 years ago and we still read and understand them just fine today. If George Orwell’s book 1984 (published 1949) doesn’t need to be revised, then *WHY* should the NIV/TNIV or HCSB/CSB need revising every 6 or 8 years???

I do not have any problem with maintaining current English with regards to Bible Translations. In fact, I believe that the practice is necessary for evangelising. Common English for the biblically, uninitiated. By all means, reinterpret, for example; brethren to brothers and sisters. This is common language, but to use any other term that is forced upon us by a few in the education department, is giving way to a system that is wholly against the principles of God. Do you think that it is possible to draw a recognisably, distinguishing line between ‘receptor language’ and political correctness? Are we not to resist the distorted ways of the world? How would we react if the term, ‘mankind’ were changed to the current ‘gendered persons,’ etc? Just a thought.

So as sort of a casual observer one thing I would say is that the TNIV doesn't age well, because if you are talking about a translation being released in the early 2000s as today's English, how well does that play out in 2024? That may be a minor detail in marketing overall, but what you name your translation does matter. Someone like me likes to know that what he's reading is a quality translation and easy to understand. So the year that the translation is released is important.

There needs to be a revision of the TNIV for today

When I wrote my thesis for my Master's degree back in the late 80's/early 90's, gender neutral language was required. It wasn't all that prevalent then. Foretaste of things to come.

I’m sad to see the car crash that was the TNIV. Zondervan’s marketing genius and deep pockets really dropped the ball with the TNIV. It is a very useful update yet the gender issues were not explained well. Perhaps too early for its time.

The problem was not that TNIV chose gender neutral when appropriate. The problem was it took it too far, to the point it actually started causing problems with Biblical references and prophecy. As an example: Psalm 34:20. The NIV renders this verse: “He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.” But the TNIV changes it to read, “He protects their bones, not one of them will be broken.” Now anyone with knowledge of the crucifiction should see the connection here, made in John 19:36, to Christ. This was not a promise to all individuals. It was actually a prophecy that none of Christ's bones would be broken. By changing him to them, you lose that reference. There are many other verses like this. This was the real problem with the TNIV that has not show up in many of the more recent inclusive texts, because the more recent ones make note of where you cannot change the gendered language.

The TNIV was a major step toward making the NIV something that I could actually take seriously as a Bible translation. I flat-out hate the 1978 and 1984 NIVs; they're utterly dishonest with the text, acting as an extreme overreaction to the more liberal tendencies of the RSV. (Caveat: The original NIV is not quite as bad about changing the text for theological reasons as the Living Bible, admittedly, and it's certainly not as bad as something like the NWT.) So I give the TNIV credit for reining in some of the worst tendencies of the earlier editions. It still has its problems (and any NIV is a bore to read), but it's no longer as consistently wrong as the 1984 edition. Its main issue is that it was marketed in the most obnoxious way, and too many editions had some of the most odious typefaces I've seen in modern Bibles. The NIV 2011 preserved what was good about the TNIV and jettisoned the tacky pseudo-hipster air about it.

Loved the video. Hope more are to come of the TNIV. I will have to purchase a copy. Thanks again.

More TNIV background videos, please!

If we were biblically literate Christian’s we would know our bibles as we know our ourselves- but often buying a Bible is only based on the color of the cover the leather smell or the pleather texture and very little on how it reads and why.

I have few collections of this Some are open & some are rejected this TNIV I have controversial against TNIV gender neutral book

I like the beard!

I think you often over-emphasize how much language changes. The vast majority of new words and idioms used by young people today have zero effect on Bible translation. Something written in the 70s is entirely understandable today. As for being “gender accurate” and being “gender neutral” they are simply not the same thing. Even the 2011 NIV has a couple of passages that the gender neutral language changes the meaning of the text (if only slightly). The TNIV should stay dead in my opinion and honestly I am a more than a bit worried about the next NIV update. This gender language issue is not being driven solely by changes in English and any translation that decides to cater to the cultural morality (I’m not saying any have quite yet) should be discarded.

Not even a fan of NIV

Forget about that nonsensical Marxist delusion of gender denial. I am glad to know about this old bible shop. Can u plz find an old 1973 Oxford NRSV which has the integrated cross ref with the apocrypha in whole bible; i mean the only bible edition ever which contain Apocrypha integrated cross referencing in whole bible. its out of print and people are looking for such gems. I wish we can find it online or even just have a cross ref module like that in our theWord like bible apps

I love the channel and not trying to just attack but….your term “gender accurate” is very biased.