Scot:
It was Stan Gundry (Bob’s brother) who responded, not Bob.

I heard part of the second broadcast on my way to work. I couldn’t believe how weak and even (to me) mistaken the attacks were against the TNIV and against the CBT (I’m afraid I could believe it, with all due respect to Dr. Grudem, who is a servant of God and has done alot of good). And Grudem said something like the translators of the TNIV made it something less than a man’s Bible!
This kind of attention to me is fine. Though I was taken back when a fellow at work seemed to be taken in to some extent with the points Grudem made.

This is why I no longer like James Dobson. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. But he has become so powerful in the Christian media world that he needs to be wise with such power.
How could he, in good conscience, bring Wayne Grudem on for a two day diatribe on the TNIV when he knows that there are good Christian scholars and Christian leaders who back the TNIV? I think Gundry’s makes a great point: Dobson, by virtue of his large listenership, should have presented both sides of the story.
But, in Dobson form, once he has formed an opinion, he determines that all of evangelicalism must conform to it. All other opinions must be squashed. My eyes were opened to this back in April 2002. In the same issue of Christianity Today, the editorials featured two seemingly unrelated issues: (1) “Why the TNIV Draws Ire”, and (2) “Enough Bullying” about the ousting of National Religious Broadcasters President Wayne Pederson for suggesting that Christian media should be less identified as the “Religious Right.”
Both editorials mentioned “bullying”–and for anyone familiar with either story, it was clear who the primary bully was: James Dobson.
When a Christian leader takes advantage of his power to become a “bully,” I say its time to face that bully and pull him down.
I’m sorry for Wayne Grudem. He is obviously not media-saavy enough to know that he was a pawn in the hand of a bully. Wayne was given an opportunity to present his side of the argument through a large media avenue (who would not jump on that?). But in doing so, he was used by Dobson to present only Dobson’s side…and the listening audience of Focus on the Family had no real indication that there is a legitimate other side.
That’s bullying again.

There is a debate between Mark Strauss and Wayne Grudem over at CBMW that I listened to a while back, and afterwards wondered why CBMW posted it on there website: It didn’t do them any favors. Strauss EFFECTIVELY dismantled the argument Grudem put forward and convinced me that the so-called “concern” about the TNIV was more or less a smear campaign.
I went and bought a TNIV bible shortly afterwards and now love it.
(not as cranky today)

The school where Grudem formerly taught, TEDS, received TNIV Bibles from the publisher to give to students at no cost. Now most of the faculty and many students have a TNIV on their shelf.

I hope any interested readers would take some time to look at the 20+ comments on that site. It seems there is a divide that few will cross to either side. It seems to me that much of the hulabaloo about the TNIV (NLT, NRSV follow suit on gender renderings) is in reference to theology and not with reference to syntax, translating, philosophy of translation. Though the anti-TNIV people then apply their theology to translating with little understanding of translating, in my mind.
Also I don’t think the TNIV translators are concerned with how our language got to where it is. They are concerned about translating Scripture so that the meaning in our idiom can get through- as much as possible.
There is a certain naivete that exists among those who think that you can simply translate word for word from one language to another. Words in their connotation and denotation simply don’t match up that easily from one language to another.

I remembered (after the above comments) that Scot probably wants to redirect our comments to “better bibles blog” website.
At the risk of that, I’ll add one more thing (please forgive me).
Once we can get past the level of debate in reference to motives, agendas, etc., there are definitely important matters to debate in reference to translation of philosophy- and translating in general.
Though it seems that the “better Bibles” website is more where I am, with reference to philosophy of translating the Bible, it is a great site in promoting discussion along those lines.

Ochuk’s blog » Blog Archive » Gundry Responds to Grudem

[...] HT: Scot McKnight [...]

Personally, I love the NIV. I am, however, extremely disappointed with the TNIV.
There is a certain naivete that exists among those who think that you can simply translate word for word from one language to another. Words in their connotation and denotation simply don’t match up that easily from one language to another.
Ted, I would counter this by saying that there is a certain arrogance when political correctness has forced us to remove the original context of the writers intent in order to appear less offensive to society and that we think we proper and right to allow any society to influence a translation. My greatest concern with the TNIV is when it has mistakenly removed a him/his within a passage describing a Messianic prophecy of Christ that compeletly strips its original meaning.
For example Psalm 34:20:
NIV: He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.
TNIV: He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken.
This is no small mistake, the translators just took the interpretation of the verse off a singular Jesus and onto a righteous people (Israel would be assumed here I suppose) elsewhere.
Brad

Brad,
I can’t agree with you. I don’t think for a minute, myself that political correctness drove the TNIV or for that matter the New Living Translation (NLT). The translating of generic “he” into “anyone” (or the like) and third person plural is just another way to express that a matter involves a human of either gender. And that usage started circa 1300.
Preachers all the time speak in third person plurals or with “anyone” etc. Dr. Grudem himself did the same on his appearance on “Focus on the Family.” It’s a matter of language usage.
And for other reasons (along with that) the TNIV definitely excels the NIV, in my opinion.

Brad
But you do bring up some debatable matters. One is changing “ioudaoi” into “Jewish leader” instead of “Jews” depending on context. I think that a good move because in contexts that is what is meant, I believe.

Brad, here is an explanation on Psa 34:20 from the TNIV website: http://www.tniv.info/bible/sample_resultsingle.php?rowid=40

Preachers all the time speak in third person plurals or with “anyone” etc. Dr. Grudem himself did the same on his appearance on “Focus on the Family.” It’s a matter of language usage.
Ted, then to be consistent, you should be speaking against the use of the original KJV in studies and preaching on the basis that it doesn’t “properly use” language in the same way we do today. Your argument needs to cut both ways to hold water as I see it.
The TNIV is inferior to the NIV on the basis that it has clearly allowed culture to influence the proper interpretation of the original languages. I would put it on the same level of the Message translation, good for commentary uses, not for serious study.
I also can not disagree with you more over the use of “ioudaoi” as well – though another issue for another day, perhaps.
Brad

Brad, I believe the best Bible translation, in a true sense is the one a person uses. Whether KJV or another.
There are other things to be said, but I’ll stop here. We just won’t agree on everything- especially with reference to culture and how one translates faithfully. That’s alright. I don’t consider this a major issue. I influenced a friend who uses KJV to buy an ESV which he uses.
Thanks for your thoughts.

Scot,
I read Stan’s response and then surfed around and read a few others. For the life of me I can’t figure Grudem and Dobson out. Could it be their commitment to hierarchicalism in male-female relationships is skewing their brains about the TNIV? The TNIV takes “a lot of manhood” out of the Bible?? Is this guy for real?

Brad, I believe the best Bible translation, in a true sense is the one a person uses. Whether KJV or another.
Though, I am not a KJVonlyist, I certainly cannot follow you down this path, Ted, but I do understand where you’re coming from and of your concerns. My concern is overtly watering down the Scriptures in lieu of cultural concerns or making the Bible easier to read. That said, I guess I would rather than the Message Bible in someones hands than none at all. Unfortunately, some very liberal versions of the Scriptures are coming out that take huge licenses of the original context and meaning of the Scriptures. I supose I am less concerned where we are now, than where it seems we are going.
I don’t consider this a major issue.
Ted, neither do I – at least not, yet and not merely over the TNIV. Thanks for discussing it, regardless. I believe that dissent in discussion, in its proper context and place, can still help build unity and I appreciate you reciprocating this sentiment.
Brad

I echo John’s wonderment at such a statement, until I realize how important it is to the CBMW movement to have a “man’s bible.” Think about that…it’s heartbreaking.

Brad, this use of the KJV and your argument makes no sense. I have to ask why did the KJV even get translated into the vugar tongue of the day? Was it not because of cultural factors? Why did the KJV get updated by the RSV? Or what about the NIV? Was that not also translated for the sake of the culture?
The issue, I believe, is one of clarity and another of avoding archaic language. I have no problem with TNIV rendering of ‘adam as human begings, because ‘adam is a generic term that even clearly refers to women in Numbers 31:28 and so on. When I read through the Bible for the fist time using my NIV I read “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” I clearly remember stopping in confusion: isn’t man male I wondered? Of course I figured it out, and reasoned that it MEANT humanity. Is that cultural? Somewhat, but it has more to do with making accurate sense instead of accomodating to egalitarianism.

What Brad and Ted’s debate misses is the point of Scot’s post in the first place. Dobson and Grudem unfairly attacked the TNIV, without any regard to having the other side present its case.
Every (yes, EVERY) translation has its pitfalls and shortcomings. That is why you’d better own more than one translation. The TNIV gets a lot of stuff right that the NIV had wrong (and thus is an improvement in those areas-because of our better understanding of the original language and culture); but at times its insistence on trying to be gender-inclusive (by replacing “him/he” with plural pronouns) compromises some of the passages that (in my opinion) should have remained singular.
Overall, it’s an improvement on the NIV but still not the perfect translation. We will never have a perfect translation because (a) our understanding of the original languages is not perfect, and (b) our understanding of today’s language is always off-mark due to its constant shiftiness.

I would have actually liked to have heard Brad and Ted debate their views on Bible translations on Focus on the Family, rather than what we got:
The “Host and expert on all things Christian, the DOCTOR James Dobson,” discussing with “the only expert on Bible translation suitable for the Focus on the Family audience to hear, the PROFESSOR Wayne Grudem” about this terrible new Bible that you should boycott.

Bob, you’re right. I would do better to concentrate on what the point of the post is- and hopefully will.
It’s just that I’m especially interested in translation theory and in the debates that go on as how to translate Scripture. So it was easy for me to get off track. Thanks for pointing that out.
Also thanks for your remark about hearing Brad and I debate on this. I kind of shook my head thinking how there was no representation on the other side of the issue and how Dobson and Grudem, to me, were setting up nothing less than a straw man to dismantle. Really, one would think that presenting this issue as Dobson did would weaken their case. After all, shouldn’t people be able to hear divisive issues discussed and then be able to come to their own conclusions? I guess not, in this case.

For a more linguistically sophisticated critique of the TNIV, one would do well to consult the work of Westminster Seminary NT professor Vern Poythress at
http://www.shepherdchurch.com/ktf/
and also the recent work by Leland Ryken, _The Word of God in English_.
These are better presentations of a principled opposition to the TNIV’s approach to systematically eliminating generic male pronouns.

Brad, this use of the KJV and your argument makes no sense. I have to ask why did the KJV even get translated into the vugar tongue of the day?
Ochuk, I could see where it wouldn’t if you are merely thinking about the 17th century. My argument was if we are going to start advocating the superiority of TNIV as some new, more accurate translation in reflection to our language and modern speech, than to be consistent one should consider the KJV as obsolete and as a version that shouldn’t be taught from. I would reject such an argument, however.
The issue, I believe, is one of clarity and another of avoding archaic language.
So you are assuming that gender neutral language used in the TNIV is ascribing to one of these types? If so, you insult the intellegence of even the simplest mind who reads the gospel and is able to distinguish the use of man, men, he, him from the singular reference to global one. Again, I don’t have a problem with updating terminology or trying to be accurate with language, but the efforts of the TNIV exceed this as it changes the very tone of the original authors. On that basis I don’t think the TNIV should be banned or anything, but I wouldn’t recommend it for serious study.
For emergents this strikes me as contradictory to the cause, as it was my understanding that emergents were concerned with orthodoxy.
Brad

I’m certainly not qualified to jump into this debate. I’ll mention though, like many schools, Regent College recently handed out free copies of the TNIV to first year students. Also, having Gordon Fee around to share stories of the various debates that took place among the translation committee adds a level of flavour to the conversation. As for the TNIV itself, I love it.

Hey all. I think I may be jumping into this discussion a bit late, but I wanted to add a few comments. I caught only the tail and of the Dobson program, so I can’t speak to that issue directly. But in as much as this thread has moved into a discussion regarding translation theory, etc., I thought I’d weigh in.
Certainly the translators of the TNIV were just as influenced by their theology as were the translators of the ESV. I simply can’t agree with Ted that a commitment to egalitarian ideals did not play a role in the way the TNIV was put together (nor would I try to deny that it was a similar commitment to complimentarian ideals that motivated the assembly of the ESV). To suggest that either translation team had divested themselves of their own ideological/theological perspective and were simply translating the scripture in a completely objective manner is naïve.
Having said that, my problem with the TNIV is not it’s methodology of translation, but the theological underpinnings that guide its translation. My fear is that the TNIV’s desire to move away from a complimentarian model (and it certainly does this) is that it threatens Trinitarian theology. Without question, the reciprocal relationship between the man and the woman is intended in many respects to serve as a living illustration (a type) of the Father’s relationship to the Son (1 Corinthians 11). The divinely restored relationship of the man to the woman helps us understand the beauty of authority and submission—aspects of the human community that find their ultimate fulfillment in the perichoretic relationship of the Godhead. I fear that in observing abuses of authority that most often resemble the way in which “the gentiles lord it over you,” and in taking our cues from a culture that looks with disdain on submission, we have lost sight of the ways in which this aspect of humanity draws out the goodness of the Father’s authority and the beauty of the Son’s faithful and willing submission. In my mind, the TNIV masks this aspect of the godhead in as much at it undermines the headship of the man over the woman. To strike at the type is to strike at the anti-type.
C. S. Lewis once remarked that he was glad that there was a point in the service when the priest stood and Lewis kneeled. His point was that submission to earthly authority—in as much as it reflected submission to divine authority—is a good thing, and that he was glad that God had instituted mechanisms in human structure where this could be expressed.
Sorry this was so long. Blessing all.

Brad,
This has been a good discussion. My comment pertains to the TNIV changing tone. In fact, very few translations preserve the tone of the original texts and authors. To get that, one has to see that Luke is very refined Greek, Matthew much less so, Mark even less than Matthew, and John in a world of his own with his syntax and grammar. (In cf. to the Gospels.) Paul’s heated volatile syntax and his long, long sentences, and Revelation … you see what I’m saying.
Nearly every translation today uses an English committee that transforms the works of the translators into better smoother more consistent grammar — so it will be consistent from Genesis to Revelation.
The only way to see the tone, so I would say, is either read the originals or translate so woodenly it is no longer English. The best for this, that I have used consistently, is the old ASV.

Gerald,
Do you really think Doug Moo does not believe in the Trinity as you are suggesting? You’ve extrapolated from the theory to a supposed theology and now made it specific. I want to resist such a move and I do so on behalf of those I know well who were on those translations teams (and I wasn’t on the TNIV — I was on the NLT and the New Century Bible teams).
I respect your work and your contributions to this blog, but I think you’ve accused the translators of things that they would disagree with completely. Namely, that they are threatening the Trinity.

Gerald,
Here’s my TNIV of Eph 5:22:
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…
That, in itself, ought to preserve the point you are most concerned about.

Gerald,
Interesting words. Have you read the TNIV? I would think that if you had then you would not make such statements. Not in one passage that has to do with male-female relationship does the TNIV remove the hierarchical relationship in their translation of the original to our language. Check out the following: 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Cor 14:34-35; Eph 5:22-31; 1 Pe 3:1-7; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15.
The majority (and I think the egalitarian[s] on the CBT make up a small minority) of the TNIV translators are complementarian patriarchical.
So your assertion is lacking in evidence.
It is true that in anything we humans do, our theology and worldview, the lenses from which we look at the world (which include all kinds of experience in formative ways) influences what we think and do. But I would assert that the TNIV translators, from the widely diverse theological commitments of the original NIV translators, translated in a way that preserves the message of the original in our overall common language today.
Of course no translation is perfect. Translation, by nature cannot perfectly duplicate the forms or manner or even exact meaning of language it is translating due to all kinds of factors (e.g., from French to English and vice-versa) (And here I’m talking about exact, though I’d say we can preserve what is essentially the meaning of the original). Though the goal is to faithfully communicate in translating, retaining the meaning being the goal (I myself have problems with a translation like the CEV in which seems to lose alot of the orignial language’s meaning; though I may be mistaken here since this impression is only from a few looks at that translation. But I’m not against the CEV).
So the commitment of the TNIV translators theologically I think has little bearing on the TNIV -only that the result of their work is out of their commitment to Scripture as the word of God. Whereas a major reason, I believe the ESV was translated was to preserve generic “he” (see their preface) as well as the desire to have a translation that emphasizes form and goes for an “essentially” literal translation.
So in no way, shape or form do I see the TNIV endangering one’s commitment to a complementarian patriarchical position or endangering the teaching of the Trinity.
Thanks Gerald, for your thoughts. Hopefully more could add to or say better what I was trying to say. Though it is very good to hear of concerns from the other side. In that way one’s position can be tested and many times refined.

Scot, before I typed up my last comment I did not see your comments. Thanks so much for all you said in so few words.

I heard Grudem on Dobson and felt his points were clear and substantiated. Authorial intent is jeoapardized with the TNIV.

Ted and Scot,
Thanks for your comments-they’re helpful. I want to respond but am just about to head out of town for the weekend and will be offline. I will try to post again on Sunday evening. Would love it if you both would check back in then and give me some feedback.
And Scot, for the record, I don’t in anyway mean to suggest that Moo (or any evangelicial egalatarian for that matter–not even sure if he is one) is attempting to undermine Trinitarian theology. I will try to explain my previous comments tomorrow evening.

Thanks for that clarification, Gerald, and we’ll look forward to comments tomorrow evening.

Let’s see him dig himself out of this hole

Scot,
Julie and I listened to both broadcasts with J Dobson and W Grudem. They emphasized that the TNIV translators are “devoted Christians” and that “we are not questioning their motives” blah, blah, blah. Yet, the perilous slippery slope is upon us…next it will be “God our Parent” and then what about the Bible and homosexuals. The TNIV translators must have be unwittingly deceived by the feminist culture of the day and are bent on de-manhooding the Bible. If this were not so laughable, I’d be crying. And I gather that the NLT and THE MESSAGE are also subversive Bibles. “The sky is falling!”

Scot, Ted, Kim, and John,
I feel like I’m in a bit of the minority here, but I’ll throw my thoughts out and you can let me know what you think. First—to reiterate—I didn’t intend in my previous comment to suggest that the editors/translators of the TNIV are intentionally looking to subvert Trinitarian theology. My point (though perhaps not well stated) was that from a complimentarian perspective, the evangelical egalitarian position unintentionally threatens Trinitarian theology in as much at it often—in my mind—undermines the typological relationship of authority and submission that exists between the terrestrial community (Man) and the divine community (God). Consequently, in as much as the TNIV is movement toward the egalitarian position (do any of you think that it isn’t?), complimentarians such as myself view it with the same concern. Perhaps it is similar to how Calvinists view a Wesleyan or Catholic understanding of the relationship between grace and free will as unintentional movement toward Pelagianism—Pelagianism being something that Catholics, Wesleyans, and Calvinists together all very categorically reject.
Ted, I am surprised by your assertion that the egalitarian position was in the minority on the TNIV translation team. This is significant to me. I have no reason to doubt your statement, and am curious as to your basis for making this statement. Scot—is this your understanding as well?
And John, I know that you are not impressed with slippery slope type arguments, but my foray into the post-conservative/post-evangelicals/emergent community has led me to the conclusion that its pervasive commitment to an egalitarian position is in fact leading—at least to some degree—to a rearticulation of the Trinity/Godhead that is not orthodox. One rather popular post-evangelical blog I occasionally read (out of Princeton) won’t even use the masculine pronoun when referring to God, using instead “Godself” (i.e., God revealed Godself to Jacob). This comes pretty close to justifying Dobson’s and Grudem’s concern about the “de-manhooding the bible” as you called it. And another emergent/post-evangelical/egalitarian emergent guy I occasionally read understands well the typological relationship that exists between man/woman and God/Christ and—in order to be consistent with his egalitarianism—has referred to any view of the Trinity that maintains economic inequality as synonymous with the heresy of subordinationism. My point in all of this is that post-conservative paradigms do have a tendency to move away from the complimentarian position, and—when attempting to be consistent between type and antitype—can lead to a restatement of the Trinity that is not orthodox (at least as I understand orthodoxy). It is hard not to see the TNIV’s gender inclusive language as movement toward (not endorsement of) a similar error.
And Kim, not sure if I dug myself out of my hole, or if I just shoveled more dirt on myself. I’m hoping for the former.
Finally, I think I speak for most male complimentarians when I say that our concern is not that we would loose our position of authority in our homes and churches, but rather that the typological relationship of submission and authority between the man/woman and God/Christ—a relationship which is full of deep beauty—would be obscured. I have more to say, but I’ve written enough already. I will be doing a post on the language of Scripture and the image of God on my own blog in the next few days which will flesh out a bit more my concern. Thanks for reading. Blessings all and I welcome your thoughts.

Gerald,
True to your word you’re back here tonight. Thanks. No one questions that the TNIV is more egalitarian and intentionally so.
I can’t speak for the others, so let me simply speak to one issue; I know you did not say your point directly, but you are still suggesting (and I think you really think this therefore) that some egalitarian translation leads to a weakening of the intra-Trinitarian submission and hierarchy. Whether intentional or not is for me not the point for you would say (as would I) that they ought to know better and if they don’t then there is a mistake at two levels. And, since the translators do know better, then they are at some level guilty of subverting the Trinity somehow. I see this as the implication of your logic. And I think you have a right to say it and I’m glad you have said it.
My contention is that (1) this relation of rhetoric and Trinity is not inevitable [not saying you say so, but it seems you might], (2) the TNIV is not consistently egalitarian nor does it obscure the husband-wife complementarianist language in crucial passages [which can still sustain your logic for a complementarian rhetoric sustaining Trinity etc], (3) I’m just not convinced that there is any logical connection at all.
In general, I’m of the view that complementarian practice is rooted in specific statements (Eph 5) and not in the godhead, though it is often “systemically related in rhetoric.” In other words, I grew up in this and I never once heard anyone say anything but Eph 5 and I never once heard it anchored in the Trinity. Not saying they shouldn’t, but saying that at the level of praxis, it is the authority of Scripture and the timelessness of Eph 5 that count the most. I could be wrong.
Also, I’m persuaded of the perichoresis and that leads in the direction of an egalitarian union at some level, and this should also be put on the table at some point if we are going to talk Trinity consistently. It is not just a hierarchical relationship, but a perichoretic union.
I’m aware of the Emerging folk who are nervous about God as Father, but I’ve never said anything quite like this. My logic is simple: I believe in Jesus and he said call God “Father” and that is enough for me. This won’t work for some, and in general I’m sympathetic with avoiding needless offensiveness.

Wow, I am over my head and awed to be a part of this conversation. But I know it’s open to us all.
Gerald, I find your website very interesting and believe there is plenty I can learn from it as I consider your views with reference to the topics you’re covering. I’ll be following your posts on this topic you bring up.
Scot, I much appreciate what you have to share. I know (as always) there is much more for me to study and seek to understand.
Gerald (again), It appears that I was overstating it when I indicated that the majority of the CBT is complementarian. Somehow I got that in my head. But they are still at least a significant portion of their number. Quoting from D.A. Carson’s “The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea For Realism”: “At the very least…all sides should recognize that the CBT members include both complementarians and egalitarians.” (p 28) “…not a few of the CBT translators are complementarians.” (p 107) “I do not personally know all of the members of the CBT, but I know quite a few of them. Some of them are among the godliest, most competent, experienced, mature thinkers and scholars I know- and not a few of them are complementarians to boot.” (p 195) From Christianity Today website (unfortunately I could not get the whole article and missed at least a quote from Dr. John Stek- one has to subscribe to get some of the articles on that site): “‘The majority [of CBT translators, my addition, understood in context] would probably understand 1 Timothy 2:12 as prohibiting women from serving as pastors?and that’s where I stand,’ says Barker, who serves as the CBT’s secretary.”
And the following is from the TNIV website: “Q: Would this translation refer to God by using such terminology as “she” or “our Father-Mother”? A: Absolutely not. It is the commitment and firm belief of the CBT that masculine terminology remains masculine when the original texts use the masculine form.” Here I think they are referring to terminology in reference to God. I’ll do a little more digging on that issue. Though I would not be 100% sure that even the CBT members themselves know where every one of them stands on that issue.
I track with Scot’s statement that the TNIV does not at all undermine your (and frankly my own since I think it best reflects the language of Scripture) belief in the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Of course the equality between them and the “perichoresis” are certainly there as well. Again the male-female relational passages are in no way watered down in the TNIV (I believe) nor should they be in any good translation- whether they reflect culture or are timeless is beside the point here for me- I am talking about faithful translation of the meaning (by the way, Eugene Peterson I read dislikes it when someone says, “Here the Word of God” and then reads his own “the Message”. He believes such should be reserved for a standard translation such as the RSV -from one of his books I have, I believe, but for time’s sake I mention this from my memory).
Yes, there is arguably (and I think so) a bit of the partriarchical aspect of Biblical culture lost in the TNIV in Psalm 1. But look at the TNIV translation of Proverbs which consistently retains “my son”. And the TNIV translates “sonship” in Gal 4:5 and Eph 1:5.
God, by the way in his essential being is neither male nor female. I’m confident that you would agree here. “So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). In spite of what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:7 (and context) to say that woman is less than made in the image of God would mean that she is no longer human. Nor would it track well with Paul’s words in Gal 3:28.
I question whether statements about God in Scripture could ever be relegated on a scrap heap even when one holds to an egalitarian view. Certainly Jesus is forever male in his humanity- even his glorified humanity. (Just as many will be forever female.)
I love what Scot is saying in his last comment. Especially when at some level we need to consider both the hierarchical relationship as well as the perichoretic union within the Trinity.
Help me understand how language switching from generic “he” to the way we speak in such matters would be undermining ultimately the teaching of the Trinity. I would think generic “he” is probably a reflection of the partriarchical culture in its origins. Certainly, even in the case of Psalm 1, which may very well have special reference to the partriarch of the family, the female is not excluded from being blessed in the same way. Consider the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31. She is hardly a wallflower. And in light of the clear word that in Christ there is no longer male nor female, but we are all one- this seems to me to lend more strength to what ought to be apparent (in my opinion) anyhow, that “he” in Scripture is most often, in didactic passages (like 1 Pe 3:10-12) referring to all human beings.
Just some of my thoughts. I apologize to you Gerald, and to all for my lengthiness here.
Thanks Gerald for your thoughts. I will be reading your blog in coming days. You are very blessed as I can see from the photos on it. Blessings.

Gerald: Here is the bit of digging I did which I meant in reference to your original question to me about whether a majority in the CBT are complementarians: “I think that most on the TNIV team are also complementarians, believing, for instance, that women should not be ordained to be pastors or elders.” And here is the page: http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2005/06/esv-and-tniv-gender-language-my-pov.html This was written by Wayne Leman on “the Better Bibles Blog”. I find this blog very interesting in discussing the translation of Scripture.

Scot and Ted,
Thanks for the feedback. Scot–I didn’t intend to skirt the issue. I do think that egalitarianism–and thus the TNIV’s movement toward it–does threaten Trinitarian thought. But I’m not sure I want to own your comment that the translators of the TNIV “ought to know better.” This seems to suggest intentionality or incompetence–neither of which I would impute. Certainly you, as you stated, don’t see a logical connection between gender inclusive language and the subverting of the economic Trinity. I’m connecting dots that you don’t. Fair enough. I don’t want my comments to lead any to the conclusion that I somehow think there is a malevolent spirit at play here.
And Ted, I will be trying to address the questions of your last major paragraph in my future posts. And thanks much for digging up the quotes. That has been helpful in correcting some of my assumptions. Thanks both for the dialog. Blessings.

CrossConnect > David Phillips » ESV and Kyle Lake’s Book

Gundry responds to Grudem and Focus on the Family-Followup
Our recent post which featured Stan Gundry responding to Wayne Grudem’s statements on two Focus on the Family radio broadcasts has probably elicited the most number of comments of any post on this blog. For those of you who wish to read more about tha…—–
[...] Well, I finally did it. I broke down yesterday and got the ESV of the Bible. I’ve been reading some discussions over on Scot McKnight’s Blog about the TNIV and keep seeing that ESV ad on Joe Thorn’s church site so I had to get a copy. I’m interested to see how it is. [...]

Ted Gossard said:
Though it seems that the “better Bibles” website is more where I am, with reference to philosophy of translating the Bible, it is a great site in promoting discussion along those lines.
Ted, thank you for your kind words about the Better Bibles Blog (BBB). It is true that we allow expression of differences of opinion on the BBB. However, we do not permit mind-reading of the sort that Wayne Grudem seems to practice, where he (and those who speak and write like him) think it is permissible to state the motivations of any Bible translators, in particular those of the TNIV, even when those translators themselves has stated their motivations otherwise. Stating other people’s motivations is often a communication stopper, harmful for dialogue necessary for mutual understanding of one another’s positions. And, in essence, when we state another person’s motivations when their own statement of their motivations differs from our statements of them, we are logically calling the other party a liar. At a minimum, it is the ethical and polite thing to always couch statements purporting to be about the motivations of others with “I personally think that their motivations are … (even though they state otherwise).”
There is a theological issue with mind-reading also. I personally think that only God has the ability to read the minds and hearts of people. Even we ourselves sometimes do not know our own motivations as well as we should, but how can anyone else know our motivations at all when they do not have access to our own thoughts?

Wayne, I agree and I appreciate the dialogue you guys have carried on with those in disagreement.
Did some of my thoughts in your judgment cross that line -not that I expect all my stuff to be read ?