Ragamuffin: TSA and its bible
In The Salvation Army there is the accepted/approved version of the scriptures that are used. Currently this is the New International Version. It is time to change our preference. How about TNIV - Today’s New International Version? This version is an updated NIV with only about seven percent changes. Some alterations are in-line with our co-equal ministry of the sexes. “Brothers and sisters” is often the replacement for the older “brothers” or “men”. Two versions I like are the NLTse and the TNIV.
Would it be possible to adopt TNIV as the one we generally use officially for The Salvation Army? Why should we? Well, it is accurate, with some claiming it’s the most accurate translation to date. It is clear; Zondervan’s target audience for it is youth and young adults - although it appeals to boomers as well. It is also practical for reading, studying and preaching.
Although officers are free to use any reliable translation it seems that if we had the NIV as “official” we could now upgrade to the TNIV.
What say you?
Ragamuffin appears every Monday on theRubicon. Find past Ragamuffin posts and a bio of Capt. Jay Davis here.
23 Comments to Ragamuffin: TSA and its bible
Leave a comment
Categories
- 1000 Post Celebration
- Areopagus
- Belief
- Blogroll
- COMING SOON
- Concise Oxford
- Creation
- Creative Arts
- Double~take
- Easter
- Ecclesia
- Education
- Ephemera
- FAD
- Featured
- From Russia with Blogs
- Gen whY?
- History
- JustThinking
- Lives lived
- Match factory
- Match Factory Events
- Ordination
- Personae
- Politics
- Power
- Ragamuffin
- Ramblings
- Redux - The Best of
- Resources
- Resurrected writers
- Reviews
- Rubicon Books
- Rubiconography
- Shades of grey
- Shades of grey
- Supper Club
- theRubi-Blog
- Think
- Thinkaloud
- Thought
- Uncategorized
- Urbanities
- Vox populi
Sound and Fury
- Officer Morale - What's wrong? 18 Margaret Mcleod, James, Roy Stephens
- 1929 (in 1,929 words) 4 markbraye, Dana Libby, James
- "The Un-Churchable" 9 Graeme Randall, Johnny Laird, Jesse
- 5 ways to improve SA Worship 18 Jason Locke, James, Rob Jeffery
- Pastors as "wannabe executives" 1 markbraye
At 614 Chattanooga the TNIV is already the “only official version.” I even joke sometimes the only inspired version.
We love it, our community loves it, and we bought hundreds of them with a grant from THQ. If you are from the USA South, let me know and I will send you the grant information.
Good Post!
–Cory Harrison
You have the Munn vote!
We’ve been using the TNIV since the mid-90’s; now anything less egalitarian seems positively neanderthal!
RJM
Personally I prefer the New Living Translation - well written, easy to read (and understand) and unlike it’s predecessor, the New Living Bible, it is a translation and not a paraphrase (though, not being an inerrantist, I’m cool with a paraphrase).
What do you mean “official” - how can any denomination or organization deem a certain translation “official”…? Isn’t that like a consumer product being deemed “the official _________ of the Olympics” or some such thing? People will use what they like anyway, so what’s the point?
I’m not sure we should be upgrading Bible translations in the same way we upgrade computers. Zondervan have probably taken enough of my money over the years, anyway. Whatever works, I say.
How does a commitment to egalitarian ministry justify using a translation deliberately unfaithful in places in the original text and context? TNIV is far from accurate: have a look at a brief summary of its problems here.
Matt,
Where’s the brief summary?
Geoff
Getting the Word into the hands and hearts of the people is paramount. The TNIV is not heretical and errors that have been pointed out are to be expected, aren’t they - if they are in fact errors at all? The Biblical text in its original languages and form was carried along by humans guided by Divine inspiration. There is bound to be translation and interpretation issues, as mankind is a flawed and sinful instrument of communication.
Why does the Salvation Army need an “official” Bible? I just finished Joyce Meyer’s “Battlefield of the Mind for teens” and she uses a mix of translations, sometimes even quoting the same passage in different versions, to enhance understanding. I thought it was really a good approach. You could do a whole service on one text, with various versions read throughout the meeting, and really get a deep experience of a single passage.
As to NIV/TNIV, I frankly don’t get the appeal of either one. It’s clear enough, but the language –of the NIV at least– to me is somewhat artless. I can’t believe the TNIV is much of an improvement. As a Bible Bowl veteran, I wish I memorized Corinthians in a better form.
And if they’re changing Exodus 20:17, all I can say is: wow! Millions of women have been sliding by on a sexist technicality for centuries and now we’re condemned because y’all want to go modern? Forget it!;)
Geoff: click on the word “here”
I want to use an English Bible which translates as accurately as possible the authors’ intended meaning. TNIV is deliberately inaccurate to reduce the discomfort caused by the Bible’s male-oriented cultural setting. That’s why I don’t go near it. There’s plenty in the Bible that makes me uncomfortable – that gives me no license to alter it. If the author meant “man”, “father”, “son”, “brother”, “he”, “him” or “his” (and we have more than enough scholarship to know whether or not they did), that’s exactly what I want to read.
I received the “Bible Experience” as a gift from my in-laws for Christmas, it is read from the TNIV. I love it. Blair Underwood read Jesus words, and people like Denzel Washington and Cuba Gooding, Jr. take significant roles as well. Most of the bible was meant to be heard anyway.
The gender inclusive issue is old in my book. The NRSV, which with the NASB is regarded by many to be the most accurate, and its editor dealt with this sensitively and cautiously, specifically as it relates to references to God. I also appreciate it because text criticism has grown a great deal since past translations, so some things are more accurate according to verification of Greek sources (P 57, etc.).
My Hebrew professor said that the only problem with the NASB and NRSV is that they are not in English. They are accurate but they are not in English. Every translation is an interpretation even the most literal one’s. Those of you who have taken Greek and Hebrew (or even if you speak another language) you know that interpretive moves are made all the time regarding translations.
I certainly hope the Army doesn’t have an “official” translation. I have never heard that, and it sounds a bit cultic to me.
My preference is the NRSV. When I was in seminary, we were often required to translate passages from Hebrew and Greek into English - a hobby I still enjoy (with the Hebrew, that is, which is more fun.) I am not a scholar by any means, but here are some things that I discovered:
- Any translation, as I’m sure everyone knows, takes a bit of massaging. If you translated word for word from the ancient languages into English, the Hebrew texts would sound silly and childlike, and the Greek texts would be almost impossible to follow, largely because Greek didn’t require a prescribed word order, but I won’t get into all that here.
- The NASB is the least massaged translation of all. That makes it a bit hard to understand. It doesn’t flow so well. It’s a bit like sucking your sugar straight from the sugar cane. Hard work, and not as sweet.
- The NIV and the TNIV are fantastic translations, true to text but with a fair amount of massaging.
- The NRSV is truer to text than the NIV and TNIV, but I think some people find it a little less accessible? Or maybe they just aren’t aware it is out there. Also, I have never been able to find an NRSV study Bible, which is disappointing (please let me know if you know of one).
- The NRSV, along with the TNIV, is gender inclusive. I agree with Matt; this is indeed an alteration of the text. There is no way you can say otherwise. If you check the original languages you’ll see that it simply is true. The question is, is that a problem? Yeah, for me, it kind of is. I want to read the Bible in its purest form. I can check the Hebrew or Greek when I want to, but not everyone studies that stuff. The only straying from the originial texts of which the TNIV and NRSV are accused is gender inclusiveness. I’m not a fan of the alteration but I can abide it. To be honest, I really don’t understand why it’s necessary. As a woman (and one who has suffered both abuse and discrimination thanks to my sex), I have never thought that Scripture passages that say things like “brothers” didn’t include me. I mean, seriously.
What really matters when it comes to issues of women, or any other biblical subject, is intelligent, informed exegesis of the text based on a reasonable understanding of the culture and time in which the text was originally written. I believe it is the duty of every Bible teacher to become educated (however she does it) so that she may correctly expound the Word. On the subject of women, my favorite resource is a very readable collection of papers called “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy”, ed. Pierce and Groothuis (shout out to Loreen Petzing, who gave me this book!).
TNIV, NIV, NRSV - these are all appropriate. I shudder to tell you that I have heard messages preached solely from “The Message”, and have heard it used for the “Scripture reading.” “The Message” can be useful at times, but it is a paraphrase that is often quite fanciful and leaps away from the true biblical text. It is also infused with Peterson’s doctrine throughout, which is often in disagreement with our Wesleyan/Arminian doctrine. Peterson is a genious, a scholar with a fertile mind. They say he never intended for his book to be treated as though it were actual Biblical text. Maybe I’m a bit off subject here, but I feel so passionately about it, I wanted to throw it in.
Thank God we have his word. My friend Piotr just finished the first ever translation from Greek directly into Polish, and now is working, with a colleague on the OT. You may want to pray for him.
Amy,
In the past, (I am an old guy)TSA has indicated, at least at our Training Colleges that only one translation was acceptable for preaching and teaching. There was latitude given for the use of other translations to amplify points and shed a different light on the passage being taught.
The problem is in the word “official.” Being somewhat of a libertarian caught in a quasi-militaristic movement, I feel we have too much in the way of dictated policy when it comes to the issue of personal freedoms and growth. The TNIV has been very helpful for me in teaching and working with emerging generations. To make it official, would be to again restrict the latitude of the true seeker in exploring the depth of what God would say to us.
I will pray for your friend. What a great opportunity for sharing the Word.
Larry
How true your words ring—back in the dark ages ( 1975-1977) when we were in Training College–the required version for us as Cadets and I still have it here nhext to me on my desk and still refer to it ( for all the scribbling I have done in it) was the New Thompson Chain Reference Bible(KJV) although now I use the NIV and would use TNIV if I was to buy a new one .
But as Amy reminds us anything other then the original languages will have some changes or translations or interpretations but since we do not all have the ability or time to read in Hebrew Greek or whatever then I think TNIV is a good way station for today although as a paraphrase( or whatever it is) the Message is good.
I can remember back in the 70s using a NT paraphrase of the Epistles entitled Letters to Street Christians by Two Brothers from Berkeley that was usefull and contained my favorite desciption of the Christian Faith as
The forever family.
John
Translation in any context is a tricky thing. When I was serving in Russia, I remember the hassle we went through trying to get good translations of various Army terms from English into Russian. For example, the closest we could come to “adherent” (a strange enough term even in English…somewhat reminiscent of a barnacle clinging to the hull of a ship) was the Russian word for “sympatizer”.
Trying to nail the Army’s 11 doctrines in precise terms, when each word is freighted with theological import, was sheer murder. Russian is a richer and more nuanced language than utilitarian English and so the range of suitable translations for “depravity” for example, would often leave us paralyzed by choice. As for songs…that was even harder!
The Russian Bible is another matter altogether. The accepted synodal translation (1876) used original texts quite different from the ones used in the Catholic/Protestant west and so the Bible we had in hand had verses missing or halved, chapters in a different order, books in a different order…all in comparision to the various English translations we brought along with us. It also used archaic language that would render in Ephesians 5:22, as an example, the word “submit” as “fear” (using a specific Russian word for fear that basically equates with heart-pounding abject terror)…you can imagine the theological slant in men-women relationships that this gave rise to!
Personally I can’t help thinking that even reading the texts in their purest forms - Greek and Hebrew - somehow this is missing the boat. The Bible is a revelation of God, and that is it’s main function. God… Immanuel…”God with us” - he came to us as a man and he made himself accessible to everyone. Further, when on earth he mostly hung out with the uneducated and common folk. By extension, I don’t believe that subsequent to this, one of the primary revelations of him (The Scriptures) would be restricted access only for those with sufficient education. If the argument is that this is the primary function therefore of officers / pastors / preachers - to be able to interepret the revelation of God to the masses, then are we not right back at some of the same issues that the Reformation addressed?
According the Walter Brueggemann in “The Prophetic Imagination”: “In responsible biblical faith the freedom of God is always in considerable tension with the accessibility of God.” He further says that: “…the whole point of having religious functionaries is to assure access.” So anytime that anyone comes out with a reasonably faithful translation or paraphrase, be it the NIV, NLT, NASB, NRSV or The Message or even J. B. Phillip’s translation of the New Testament (for my money, still the most elegant colloquial version)…then I applaud it. All in the interest of making God accessible to people.
Assuming that God always wants to be in relationship with us more than any of us want to be in relationship with him, I reckon he can be trusted to pick up the slack when those translations are not as precise or accurate or “faithful” (what an dour term) as some of us would like.
Hey All!
So glad to see this this issue is garnering interest. I would love to see an article here about the various translations of the Bible, their methods, advantages and shortcomings.
Translation is an art. Living in an officially bilingual country I’ve had the experience of having my work translated into French, as well as “plain language” English. Knowing something of the former (and evidently not enough of the latter) when I’ve put them under scrutiny the results have not been quite to my taste. But then I think most apt translation of “Non, je ne regrette rien” is“I did it my way” (”My Way” is itself a rendition of “Comme d’habitude”).
Still though, these are languages are somewhat close to the one I write in and even here the best that the translator can hope for is to be consistent within a work. And it it gets more confusing when one is dealing with a work that is composed of a number of works put in writing at times and places some distances from events.
What I’m saying is that I’d have a hard time putting my stamp on any official version of the Bible, not out of theological indignation but because it would be hard for me to believe that any translation could really reflect all of the truth in the most truthful light.
Merry Christmas
Andrea
Merry Christmas
I look on my bookshelves and count 36 Bibles, between my husband and myself and that doesn’t include the Bibles the kids have in their rooms, or have left in the van or at the corps. A variety of translations. What an incredible blessing, to be able to have so much richness at my fingertips, where many Christian believers are denied the physical revelation of God’s Word.
I would resist an “official” translation or any movement towards it, even though I enjoy the inclusiveness of TNIV. My favorite Bible from my youth has been an NIV which has quite a few notes and illustrations - not because of its NIVness as much as its size and portability and concordance.
I am very caught by the energy and enthusiasm the Scriptures present when brought straight from their original language - Greek NT and Hebrew OT.
Within my seminary classes, every exegetical study is required to present at least 3 translations and it is striking how much variation is found simply within the comparison.
I am not an expert, but strive for the closest reach for what was originally written and find that a lexicon is essential to a complete study.
I find that NIV is quite variant from the Greek, and found NRSV closer. NASB is on the top shelf and The Message is on the shelf of devotional reading, not with the other Scripture translations.
Candidly speaking, it would be negligent and irresponsible to mandate a translation of Scripture, making one translation “official” and thus spoken superior. I do consider it to be essential for academic integrity and publishing accuracy to stipulate the specific translation used within a sermon, article or book. It only requires a citation, a minimal amount of effort to establish the location of the Scripture used.
If anything should authentically be aspired to be official, it should be the mandate to always cite the Scriptural translation when referring to the written revelation from God, His Holy Word, The Bible.
Alright…speaking of bible translations - teaching & preaching from the bible specifically - does anyone else out there ever wonder if the bible was really meant to be used the way we generally use it, ie as a textbook?
Or that preaching, as we tend to extol it (didactic monologue / lecture) is actually quite ineffective in 1) conveying truth; 2) transforming lives; 3) confronting evil; 4) righting injustices; 5) saving people?
Just throwing it out there…
There is a great article by our founder in “The General’s Letters” that talks about the “Revised Version” of the bible that was hitting the market in that day.
In 1883, he was irritable about the problems of a Revised version of the bible that was not in the language of the common person:
“It is of no use making correct translations of words if we cannot get the words TRANSLATED INTO LIFE”(emphasis Booth’s).
Geoff, the thrust of your question is largely the focus of Karl Barth’s theology as a whole (it might be good for you to pick up some Barth–I know this would mean you would have to stop sipping from the Bruggleman juice found in “The Prophetic Imagination”). Of course that is a great book as well. I think Barth has wonderful points to be made about preaching. I think he misses the boat a bit in wishing away the fruits of historical criticism.
Will Willimon (glad to see his article last week) is basically a modern translation of Barth, in my book-happy if anyone disagrees.
Happy new year, Andy Miller III
Geoff,
since your asking for opinions…I always say, study what Jesus studied. Chick Yuill points out in his book This Means War (i’m sure you’ve read it) that Christ uses Dueteronomy to deter the Devil. In the temple he quotes Isaiah.
I think one problem with out preaching out of scripture today, is that most people use mostly the New Testament. The OT is barely touched. Alot of the New Testament is doctrine, and Preachers try and teach doctrine upon doctrine and never get to the root. Does that make sense? The writers of the NT came up with their doctrine from the OT. I think we shoudl be able to do the same… just a thought.
Oh, and I’m an ESV fan
I’m all for any translation that helps tell the Christian story and as Geoff has rightly pointed out (if I may amplify what I’m sure he meant) that story begins with Jesus, his story and his stories. It is of course much easier to preach doctrine and application from Paul et al., and too much of our preaching comes from there. But that’s another debate.
Re gender inclusiveness, people who have grown up in the church absorb with their mother’s (parent’s) milk that man sometimes means humankind and that brother means brothers and sisters. However, in my experience new Chrisitans often do not. And that’s where gender inclusive translations are great. It’s not merely political correctness to placate some left leaning, feminist, distort the word of God agenda. It’s helpful re-telling of the Christin story. If occassionally the translators go too far the preacher (story teller) can exlain that just as we explain non-inclusive language now.
Re Wayne Grudem’s objections to TNIV, unfortunately I read an article by Wayne Grudem on women in ministry and resolved never again to take anything he said seriously.
This discussion has been especially enlightening for me. I loose pocket Bibles like pocket change and frequently have to borrow my wife’s NIV. (I go back and forth between NIV and NKJV, the latter mainly because of my father’s influence and the notes in the margin of one of the Bibles he has given me.)
Well, this time at the bookshop, I bought The Message, through the Bible in a year version. Though I have been enjoying some of it, I’ve found it difficult to accept it as God’s Word, if that makes sense. Plus, I absolutely hate that Peterson translates “Amen” to “Yes!”. How dorky and insipid, IMHO.
On the other hand, having grown up in the Church, I wonder how much my preference has to do with “comfortable surroundings” - maybe it’s just easier to abide by a translation that no longer riles me when it should, but only comforts me with nostalgia and sentiment.
What about the different genres and writing styles in which the Bible is written (historical account, narrative, poetry, allegory, etc.)? Should that be a factor when deciding what translation is most accurate?
Just some thoughts.
This has been an interesting discussion - and the variety of opinions expressed here are just a small indication of the variety of opinion represented in our corps/churches every Sunday.
Like most things it seems to come down to a healthy mix. We came to a corps with a stack of NLTs as the “official” church bible but they are hardly ever used.
As others have already said here the awesome task is to communicate the riches of God’s word in a way that people will connect with - “To understand profoundly but to communicate simply” as one of my training college tutors once said. My personal preference is NRSV for study, NIV for platform and an occasional dip into TNIV/NLT for personal/small group/pastoral use. The New Interpreters Bible commentary series lay out NIV and NRSV parallel passages so is a good reference for study/prep…
…but we don’t have an ‘official’ commentary yet and there’s a whole other debate.
Grudem’s views are worth reading (thanks for that link, Matt) but like anything else we read an appreciation of where the author is coming from is useful.
Ultimately, the Holy Spirit is the One who leads us into truth, and isn’t it amazing that He speaks through His word in a whole bunch of different languages? It just occurs to me that we in the English-speaking world can afford to have this debate because we have such a wealth of scholarship and translations to draw upon. Our brothers and sisters in other countries don’t always enjoy that luxury.
Thanks to everyone for challenging my own thinking.
I’m going to throw something into the mix that the majority of you may well dismiss instantly - but here it is anyway: The TNIV New Testament was published last year in an ultra-hip format to reach out to a very specific demographic - fans of anime or manga cartoons. (http://www.themangabible.com) I purchased the complete NT version and an abridged version, designed to introduce main biblical themes and topics to the “new” reader.
This Bible is published by Hodder & Stoughton, which began in the late 1800s by publishing Churchill, Chesterton and the Bible. About the Manga Bible, the Archbishop of Canterbury can hardly contain his excitement: “This is an exciting new venture, in completely up-to-the-minute style and speech. It will convey the shock and freshness of the Bible in a unique way.”
If we are content to stomach the Message in most cases, then this presentation surely deserves our attention and use, doesn’t it?
Rob, I’d agree that if we are to accept the Message for it’s somewhat contemporary nature, then it follows that any culturally distinctive translation has its merits. The Manga Bible is definitely reaching a market that may not have been reached successfully before!