PDA

View Full Version : What Translation Of The Bible Do You Mostly Use?



JordanW
May 4th 2008, 09:25 PM
Just what the title says.

CFJ
May 4th 2008, 09:57 PM
The Bible I read the most, is the Old Afrikaans Translation first published in 1933 and revised in 1953. It is almost identical to it's English counterpart, the King James Version and the same manuscripts were used.

I'm from South Africa and my native language is Afrikaans, explaining my interest in an Afrikaans Bible. When reading English Bibles, I read almost all thats available, but prefer the KJV.

WtheWildthingsR
May 4th 2008, 10:27 PM
I have limited time to read so I have the bible on my ipod. I have The Word of Promise New Testement Audio Bible narrated by Jim Caviesl and others. Psalms and proverbs I got from Itunes and I have no idea who is narrating them. I like KJV.

BrckBrln
May 4th 2008, 10:36 PM
NKJV and ESV are the ones I read the most.

daughter
May 5th 2008, 04:27 PM
The Bible I read the most, is the Old Afrikaans Translation first published in 1933 and revised in 1953. It is almost identical to it's English counterpart, the King James Version and the same manuscripts were used.

I'm from South Africa and my native language is Afrikaans, explaining my interest in an Afrikaans Bible. When reading English Bibles, I read almost all thats available, but prefer the KJV.
Hey Hey!!! I've ordered the Afrikaans bible that you suggested from my Christian bookshop, and I'm hoping to have it before I get out to SA... can I ask, what style of languge is it in? I remember reading Brother Andrew from Holland saying that he learned English originally from the KJV, and realised there was a problem when he asked someone at his bible school to pass the salt.

"The neighbour of Andrew doth ask if thou couldst kindly pass the salt?"

I won't end up speaking like that, will I?

daughter
May 5th 2008, 04:31 PM
To answer the question... I prefer a word for word translation, rather than thought for thought... because if we translate what we think they're thinking rather than the actual words we end up in a bit of a mess.

My all time favourite is still the KJV. But my son and I are reading the Holman Standard Version (a modern thought for thought) straight through. (We're in Samuel at the moment.) Holman's is very good, and I'd highly recommend it.

Sometimes I do prefer to try and read the Greek in the original, but then you get the problems with "textus receptus" etc... which I prefer, but that's an other thread.

My Hebrew's not good enough yet to read comfortably... though when I do manage to read a passage I feel like running through the streets yelling "whooppeee!" So far I've read a few psalms, the start of Genesis, bits of Leviticus and Jonah in Hebrew.

But it makes my head ache...

CFJ
May 6th 2008, 09:58 AM
Hey Hey!!! I've ordered the Afrikaans bible that you suggested from my Christian bookshop, and I'm hoping to have it before I get out to SA... can I ask, what style of languge is it in? I remember reading Brother Andrew from Holland saying that he learned English originally from the KJV, and realised there was a problem when he asked someone at his bible school to pass the salt.

"The neighbour of Andrew doth ask if thou couldst kindly pass the salt?"

I won't end up speaking like that, will I?

Hehehe, fortunately the Afrikaans Bibles is not the same regarding language. The 1900's is not the 1600's... :)

Eaglenester
May 15th 2008, 02:37 AM
Hebraic Roots version of The Scriptures.

Comes from South Africa.

MidnightsPaleGlow
May 15th 2008, 11:18 AM
Lately I've been going with the KJV, however, I'm not a KJV onlyist, just yesterday I was skimming through my NIV.

Friend of Jesus
May 15th 2008, 01:29 PM
Although it lacks the Old Testement, the message is a very good translation- It reads very easily and it is easier to relate to than some other translations (Also it comes in a nice soft blue cover!)

trodder
Jun 5th 2008, 10:47 PM
I have been using the NIV for the last 13 years but I'm currently looking for a different translation.

longtooth
Jun 5th 2008, 11:50 PM
KJV. It has stood the test of time.

Ashley274
Jun 6th 2008, 04:35 AM
I bet you know this :rofl: but mostly I read NKJV

Buzzword
Jun 9th 2008, 06:12 PM
Mostly NIV, though I also own a KJV and occasionally use it to cross-reference when a particular verse comes into a discussion/debate.

Also have an Oxford Annotated Bible that I had to get for a theology class, which includes the Apocrypha, and Greek/Hebrew versions of the Old/New Testaments for reference.

brokengirl
Jun 19th 2008, 03:55 PM
I use a parallel bible with KJV and New Living.

Brother Todd
Jun 20th 2008, 03:07 AM
I read three King James,The Living Bilbe, New International Version

Redneck Charger
Jun 20th 2008, 08:27 AM
I am using the BBE version.. I had trouble's understanding the other versions.. SO I am reading the BBE first..and then will try other versions..and I ask God to help me understand his book.. :pray:

theBelovedDisciple
Jun 26th 2008, 04:12 AM
King James Version

Firekitty
Jul 12th 2008, 11:12 PM
I use NIV mostly, sometimes KJV.

Reynolds357
Jul 13th 2008, 02:49 AM
Although it lacks the Old Testement, the message is a very good translation- It reads very easily and it is easier to relate to than some other translations (Also it comes in a nice soft blue cover!)

You must just have a message new testament.

Oma
Jul 13th 2008, 03:01 AM
The KJV to me is the best English Bible. I love the majestic sounding old English.

Bethany67
Jul 14th 2008, 06:49 PM
NIV for me - it treads a fine line between dignified language and clarity of reading. But when studying, I'll look up passages in various translations for comparison.

propheticdreams
Jul 21st 2008, 07:50 PM
NIV and NLT... Sometimes I'll read the KJV...

I mostly use the NIV for bible studies...

skc53
Jul 21st 2008, 09:51 PM
I've always used KJV, and I also have the NKJV. I like both of them!

DreamWeaver
Aug 1st 2008, 02:54 AM
I 95% of the time use the King James Version.

BadDog
Aug 1st 2008, 02:36 PM
Here in the South, the HCSB is probably number 2 or 3 after the NIV and the KJV. All of their Sunday School material (Baptist) is in HCSB. Forthose notfamiliar with it, it reads somewhat like the NIV, but a bit more word-for-word, and IMO is more accurate.

BD

smokey the dog
Aug 2nd 2008, 01:44 AM
I use the New American Standard. Have since I became a Christian in 1976.

BadDog
Aug 3rd 2008, 03:34 AM
Now this is interesting, seeing the KJV by far the largest group. Especially since gotta be 2/3 of evangelicals prefer the NIV. Says something about either the type of person attracted to this board or else the fervor perhaps of those who prefer their KJ. Cool.

BD

Esperanza32
Aug 3rd 2008, 04:16 PM
I like NIV the best and use it the most, but it's fun to try different versions. I enjoy reading the New Testament in Greek (very slowly!), but I don't know any Hebrew yet.

Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to understand the KJV.

I misunderstood the 23rd Psalm for years because I heard it in KJ English. "The Lord is my shephard I shall not want"--as a child, it confused me why anyone wouldn't want the Lord to be their shephard! When I later heard the same verse translated "The Lord is my shephard, I have everything I need" it all made so much sense.

Bethany67
Aug 3rd 2008, 04:31 PM
I don't think it's an issue of being 'smart' - being a linguist, I read Chaucer for pleasure in the original 14th century Middle English, but I just don't 'get' the KJV. I find it very hard, and when it comes to understanding God's word, I value clarity. For those who do like the KJV, great, but it's not for me. I couldn't imagine using it to explain the Gospel to the people I know; I'd be speaking a foreign language to them.

I've recently discovered the NLT, and it's refreshing to read a slightly different translation - things leap out at me. I'm trying to find a copy small enough to carry in my handbag, so if anyone knows of one, please let me know. I like what I've seen of the HCSB so far. There's always going to be a tension between word-for-word and dynamic equivalence when it comes to translations.

TRL1957
Aug 3rd 2008, 07:43 PM
I have THE PARALLEL BIBLE, which has the NIV/KJV, side by side. I can compare both translations on any page. I find it very helpful as I sometimes get confused.

holyrokker
Aug 4th 2008, 04:15 AM
English Standard Version

Literalist-Luke
Aug 23rd 2008, 07:05 AM
TNIV ("Today's New International Version")

BadDog
Aug 23rd 2008, 05:49 PM
I like NIV the best and use it the most, but it's fun to try different versions. I enjoy reading the New Testament in Greek (very slowly!), but I don't know any Hebrew yet.

Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to understand the KJV.

I misunderstood the 23rd Psalm for years because I heard it in KJ English. "The Lord is my shephard I shall not want"--as a child, it confused me why anyone wouldn't want the Lord to be their shephard! When I later heard the same verse translated "The Lord is my shephard, I have everything I need" it all made so much sense.Esperanza,

Keep up reading the Greek. Most people who've taken Greek in seminary don't keep up on it by actually reading it... they just use their lexicons, Greek commentaries, etc. to help when reading in English. After awhile, they lose what they'd learned. A shame.

I recommend using Refresh Your Greek by Perschbacher. It's the Greek NT with less common parsings and words at the bottom of each page. If you have an English Bible alongside to read, it helps too. I too read slowly, but it's amazing how many things just plain read differently or have different nuances in Greek.

I try to read a chapter a day of the Greek NT.

Hang in there... it's so worth it. The idea is not that we know something that others' don't, but simply to ask God to speak to us, same as reading in English.

BD

BadDog
Aug 23rd 2008, 05:51 PM
TNIV ("Today's New International Version")L-Luke,

How do you like your TNIV? I like it - better than the NIV anyway. (I'm not a big proponent of the NIV, though I do like its balance.) The TNIV is more accurate than the NIV, IMO, and the gender-inclusive thing is much over-blown also.

Thoughts?

BD

BadDog
Aug 23rd 2008, 05:52 PM
English Standard Version
When I got involved with the Navs, I used the RSV... the ESV is a conservative revision of the RSV. Reads nicely IMO.

Question: what do you like about the ESV?

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Aug 23rd 2008, 06:00 PM
I don't think it's an issue of being 'smart' - being a linguist, I read Chaucer for pleasure in the original 14th century Middle English, but I just don't 'get' the KJV. I find it very hard, and when it comes to understanding God's word, I value clarity. For those who do like the KJV, great, but it's not for me. I couldn't imagine using it to explain the Gospel to the people I know; I'd be speaking a foreign language to them.

I've recently discovered the NLT, and it's refreshing to read a slightly different translation - things leap out at me. I'm trying to find a copy small enough to carry in my handbag, so if anyone knows of one, please let me know. I like what I've seen of the HCSB so far. There's always going to be a tension between word-for-word and dynamic equivalence when it comes to translations.
Bethany,

I like everything you said here. :P Clarity is the key, I agree. And the HCSB is not very well known, but IMO it does a nice job of walking that line - nice balance - between dynamic equivalency and literalness. It has a philosophy of translation similar to the RSV, which said "As literal as possible, as free as necessary" or something like that. The HCSB refers to its philosophy of translation as "optimal equivalency."

IMO "word-for-word" literalness is much overblown. Most linguists prefer a more free translation philosophy. If the reader doesn't clearly understand what they're reading, that greatly diminishes its value IMO. Personally, I've liked the NASB for some time... but I've just had to admit over time that it is simply too "wooden" - not much better than the KJV IMO. And if you're going to read the Bible, it ought at least to be clear.

Question: do you like the NIV? ...the TNIV?

Thx,

BD

Literalist-Luke
Aug 23rd 2008, 06:58 PM
L-Luke,

How do you like your TNIV? I like it - better than the NIV anyway. (I'm not a big proponent of the NIV, though I do like its balance.) The TNIV is more accurate than the NIV, IMO, and the gender-inclusive thing is much over-blown also.The preface to the TNIV should be required reading for anybody who doubts its genuineness. The TNIV translators have used the latest scholarship in translating the original languages and have made a number of corrections where the original NIV was actually hampered in rendering the original language accurately because of "tradition" handed down from the KJV. (This was especially a problem on the so-called gender "issue".) For these reasons, the TNIV is, if anything, more accurate and more dependable than the NIV.

As for the gender issue, the TNIV has NOT gone gender "neutral". Rather, it has gone gender accurate. The only changes in the TNIV text regarding gender are places where the NIV rendered something in the masculine due to "tradition" (think "KJV"), but where the original language writer's intent was not directed at a specific gender. God is still rendered exclusively as a "he" throughout the TNIV. People who claim that the TNIV is "liberalizing" the Bible have not done their research and are going off half-cocked.

I am thrilled with my TNIV Study Bible. There are a few places in the notes that I disagree with, just as there would be with any study Bible, but it's still the best Bible I've ever used, both for readability, accuracy, and general study. I wouldn't want to be without it.

BadDog
Aug 23rd 2008, 08:24 PM
The preface to the TNIV should be required reading for anybody who doubts its genuineness. The TNIV translators have used the latest scholarship in translating the original languages and have made a number of corrections where the original NIV was actually hampered in rendering the original language accurately because of "tradition" handed down from the KJV. (This was especially a problem on the so-called gender "issue".) For these reasons, the TNIV is, if anything, more accurate and more dependable than the NIV.

As for the gender issue, the TNIV has NOT gone gender "neutral". Rather, it has gone gender accurate. The only changes in the TNIV text regarding gender are places where the NIV rendered something in the masculine due to "tradition" (think "KJV"), but where the original language writer's intent was not directed at a specific gender. God is still rendered exclusively as a "he" throughout the TNIV. People who claim that the TNIV is "liberalizing" the Bible have not done their research and are going off half-cocked.

I am thrilled with my TNIV Study Bible. There are a few places in the notes that I disagree with, just as there would be with any study Bible, but it's still the best Bible I've ever used, both for readability, accuracy, and general study. I wouldn't want to be without it.
Lit-Luke,

Thx. If you'll note, I did not refer to the TNIV as "gender-neutral," as those who put down the TNIV do... I referred to it as "gender-inclusive," which is a balanced way to do so. It simply says that changes were made which allowed for genders (both male and female) to inclusively be addressed.

Of course the translators of the TNIV believe that to be a more accurate handling of the texts involved. Some say they have compromised to a degree in such translation adjustments. (Not I - I think that about 2/3 of them are improvements... IMO about 1/3 I do not agree with.) FYI, I have spent many hours checking out all 900 or so places that gender-type changes were made to the NT, and like I said above, I agree with about 600 of them. IOW, I have researched this heavily.

And I do believe the reaction to the TNIV by some evangelicals is much overblown - an over-reaction. There were many non-gender related changes made to the NIV by the TNIV which IMO improve its accuracy. I personally prefer it to the NIV. But then again, I am not a big fan of the NIV, due to its Reformed slant in the translation of some texts.

Glad you like your TNIV so much.

Take care,

BD

Literalist-Luke
Aug 24th 2008, 01:54 AM
Lit-Luke,

Thx. If you'll note, I did not refer to the TNIV as "gender-neutral," as those who put down the TNIV do... Certainly. If I seemed like that was all aimed solely at you, then please accept my most humble apology. It was only aimed at the argument in general, not you.
I referred to it as "gender-inclusive," which is a balanced way to do so. It simply says that changes were made which allowed for genders (both male and female) to inclusively be addressed.I think that's a very accurate way of putting it. :yes:
Of course the translators of the TNIV believe that to be a more accurate handling of the texts involved. Some say they have compromised to a degree in such translation adjustments. (Not I - I think that about 2/3 of them are improvements... IMO about 1/3 I do not agree with.) FYI, I have spent many hours checking out all 900 or so places that gender-type changes were made to the NT, and like I said above, I agree with about 600 of them. IOW, I have researched this heavily.Sounds like it, I'm impressed. :thumbsup:
And I do believe the reaction to the TNIV by some evangelicals is much overblown - an over-reaction. There were many non-gender related changes made to the NIV by the TNIV which IMO improve its accuracy. I personally prefer it to the NIV. But then again, I am not a big fan of the NIV, due to its Reformed slant in the translation of some texts.Huh, OK. Could you elaborate on that?
Glad you like your TNIV so much.I do, I do! :D

BadDog
Aug 24th 2008, 04:32 AM
Lit-Luke,

No apology needed... just wanted to be sure you understood where I stand there.

Back about 4 years ago there was a very strong reaction to the TNIV - they called it "The Stealth Bible." Part of that was due to a misunderstanding to how the NIV is revised. Zondervan has nothing to do with revision of the NIV. The CBT (Committee for Bible Translation) is an independent organization which does not report to any input from Zondervan. Zondervan does not try to influence the CBT - which it could not anyway. I like this, because it allows the Bible translators of the CBT to not be swayed by public issues, or to bow to the influence of those who sit in a position of power. It's too bad more translation organizations didn't do it that way... none other do that I am aware. For example, the NLT translators were influenced by Taylor - the original "translator" (actually, it was a paraphrase) of the Living Bible in the development of the NLT. Fortunately he listened to the suggestions of the translation committee. But there can be no doubt that they were influenced by him in that first edition... the revision which came out a couple of years later had extensive revisions.

Anyway, there was quite a reaction on the Bible Translation egroup to which I was, and am, a member. There we heard the opponents of the TNIV give a list of problem texts - about 906 or so initially, but later reduced to 901. Eventually, the TNIV did respond to many of those concerns, and revised the TNIV. But I did look at those 900 texts. (Eight various types of issues, listed A through H - once you understood the issue, the others in the group usually followed form of the other examples.) You can still find that list of scriptures if you go to The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW):

http://www.cbmw.org/

The following link gives a good overview by the CBMW:

https://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/TNIV-s-Altered-Meanings

IMO some of their concerns are legitimate, but most are due to a misunderstanding to the proper translation of Greek male-representative type language. Here's another good article:

https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-1/The-Gender-Neutral-NIV

Mark Strauss has debated Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem and is an excellent Bible translator. You can find some articles from him on-line supporting the TNIV. Following is the TNIV website:

http://www.tniv.info/

Following is a link in that website where you can search for answers to most scriptures in which people question why the TNIV translated it as they did:

http://www.tniv.info/bible/sample.php

BTW, there is a link in that CBMW site which lists all 900 "errors." OK, here it is... listing 901 verses:

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/Translation-Inaccuracies-in-the-TNIV

I should point out that some of those listed (in 2002) have since been corrected by the CBT, so the new list would be shortened... perhaps only 700 or 800 now - not sure.

So, if you're curious - have at it. FWIW, I sometimes agreed with A, almost always agreed with B, do not agree with C at all (The CBMW does not understand ADELPHOI - "brothers"), nor do I agree with the CBMW regarding D ("man" - when translated from ANTHROPOI means "people"... when translated from ANER, it should be "man" - I agree there, and the TNIV did do that on a handful of verses), often agreed with E (changing "sons" to "children"), sometimes agreed regarding F ("Jews" to "Jewish leaders" - but usually did not since they did so only when it was clear from the context that not all the Jews present were being referenced, but the leaders), and do not agree with the CBMW regarding G. The last category (H) is a hodge-podge of various issues.

Any interested can look up the A - H changes listed in that link above. If you look up one of the verses listed by the CBMW in that link, the TNIV link above can usually give detailed analysis explaining why they translated it as they did. Remember, Dr. Strauss and the CBT are translators... those speaking for the CBMW are, in general, theologians or pastors - not really in the profession of Bible translation.

Here's an example of the kind of change made:

Luke 9:23 NIV "If any man would come after Me. let him..."

TNIV "If anyone would come after Me let them..."

FYI, "man" is simply not there at all in the Greek. This was "male-representative" translation into the English. There's nothing there to warrant it at all. The "him" is there in the Greek, but just as was common in the English a few years ago, in Greek "him" was often used in an inclusive manner - they referred to all people as "him" often when speaking generically. Since in the Greek "anyone" was present, it was obvious that this was referring not just to men. Does anyone really think that Jesus was just inviting men to follow Him?! Yet this verse is cited by the CBMW (type "A" above).

Another example:

Revelation 3:20 NIV 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.

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 them, and they with me.

Now what you have to realize first is that the NIV translated a pronoun as "him" simply because in English we do not really have a singular generic pronoun... in the past we used "him" for that. Everyone knew that included women as well. But today it has become common to translate it as "they" or "them" instead. The CBMW objects since they feel that the personal invitation is lost - coming across with less power. I do not agree. Regardless, the TNIV did what today's grammars say is the proper thing to do.

IMO the TNIV just reads more clearly with such changes. This is not the kind of issue to make a big deal about, IMO. Most who do so simply have not investigated the issue with care. Some even mistakingly think that the TNIV is turning God into a Female God! (Ridiculous)

FWIW,

BD

Literalist-Luke
Aug 24th 2008, 05:41 AM
Lit-Luke,

No apology needed... just wanted to be sure you understood where I stand there.

Back about 4 years ago there was a very strong reaction to the TNIV - they called it "The Stealth Bible." Part of that was due to a misunderstanding to how the NIV is revised. Zondervan has nothing to do with revision of the NIV. The CBT (Committee for Bible Translation) is an independent organization which does not report to any input from Zondervan. Zondervan does not try to influence the CBT - which it could not anyway. I like this, because it allows the Bible translators of the CBT to not be swayed by public issues, or to bow to the influence of those who sit in a position of power. It's too bad more translation organizations didn't do it that way... none other do that I am aware. For example, the NLT translators were influenced by Taylor - the original "translator" (actually, it was a paraphrase) of the Living Bible in the development of the NLT. Fortunately he listened to the suggestions of the translation committee. But there can be no doubt that they were influenced by him in that first edition... the revision which came out a couple of years later had extensive revisions.

Anyway, there was quite a reaction on the Bible Translation egroup to which I was, and am, a member. There we heard the opponents of the TNIV give a list of problem texts - about 906 or so initially, but later reduced to 901. Eventually, the TNIV did respond to many of those concerns, and revised the TNIV. But I did look at those 900 texts. (Eight various types of issues, listed A through H - once you understood the issue, the others in the group usually followed form of the other examples.) You can still find that list of scriptures if you go to The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW):

http://www.cbmw.org/

The following link gives a good overview by the CBMW:

https://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/TNIV-s-Altered-Meanings

IMO some of their concerns are legitimate, but most are due to a misunderstanding to the proper translation of Greek male-representative type language. Here's another good article:

https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-1/The-Gender-Neutral-NIV

Mark Strauss has debated Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem and is an excellent Bible translator. You can find some articles from him on-line supporting the TNIV. Following is the TNIV website:

http://www.tniv.info/

Following is a link in that website where you can search for answers to most scriptures in which people question why the TNIV translated it as they did:

http://www.tniv.info/bible/sample.php

BTW, there is a link in that CBMW site which lists all 900 "errors." OK, here it is... listing 901 verses:

http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/Translation-Inaccuracies-in-the-TNIV

I should point out that some of those listed (in 2002) have since been corrected by the CBT, so the new list would be shortened... perhaps only 700 or 800 now - not sure.

So, if you're curious - have at it. FWIW, I sometimes agreed with A, almost always agreed with B, do not agree with C at all (The CBMW does not understand ADELPHOI - "brothers"), nor do I agree with the CBMW regarding D ("man" - when translated from ANTHROPOI means "people"... when translated from ANER, it should be "man" - I agree there, and the TNIV did do that on a handful of verses), often agreed with E (changing "sons" to "children"), sometimes agreed regarding F ("Jews" to "Jewish leaders" - but usually did not since they did so only when it was clear from the context that not all the Jews present were being referenced, but the leaders), and do not agree with the CBMW regarding G. The last category (H) is a hodge-podge of various issues.

Any interested can look up the A - H changes listed in that link above. If you look up one of the verses listed by the CBMW in that link, the TNIV link above can usually give detailed analysis explaining why they translated it as they did. Remember, Dr. Strauss and the CBT are translators... those speaking for the CBMW are, in general, theologians or pastors - not really in the profession of Bible translation.

Here's an example of the kind of change made:

Luke 9:23 NIV "If any man would come after Me. let him..."

TNIV "If anyone would come after Me let them..."

FYI, "man" is simply not there at all in the Greek. This was "male-representative" translation into the English. There's nothing there to warrant it at all. The "him" is there in the Greek, but just as was common in the English a few years ago, in Greek "him" was often used in an inclusive manner - they referred to all people as "him" often when speaking generically. Since in the Greek "anyone" was present, it was obvious that this was referring not just to men. Does anyone really think that Jesus was just inviting men to follow Him?! Yet this verse is cited by the CBMW (type "A" above).

Another example:

Revelation 3:20 NIV 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.

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 them, and they with me.

Now what you have to realize first is that the NIV translated a pronoun as "him" simply because in English we do not really have a singular generic pronoun... in the past we used "him" for that. Everyone knew that included women as well. But today it has become common to translate it as "they" or "them" instead. The CBMW objects since they feel that the personal invitation is lost - coming across with less power. I do not agree. Regardless, the TNIV did what today's grammars say is the proper thing to do.

IMO the TNIV just reads more clearly with such changes. This is not the kind of issue to make a big deal about, IMO. Most who do so simply have not investigated the issue with care. Some even mistakingly think that the TNIV is turning God into a Female God! (Ridiculous)

FWIW,

BDExcellent info - thanks! :thumbsup: