Comments on: In the Name of the Rock, the Papers, and the Scissors We Pray, Amen. http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2006/07/19/in-the-name-of-the-rock-the-papers-and-the-scissors-we-pray-amen/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:24:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: R. Mansfield http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2006/07/19/in-the-name-of-the-rock-the-papers-and-the-scissors-we-pray-amen/#comment-392 R. Mansfield Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:02:00 +0000 http://www.samshua.com/blog/2006/07/19/in-the-name-of-the-rock-the-papers-and-the-scissors-we-pray-amen/#comment-392 Please understand that I believe the PCUSA is clearly wrong here. Such usage is outside the bounds of Scripture. But I don't buy the slippery-slope language about gender accuracy. I am a complementarian, not an egalitarian, so I don't have any hidden agenda here. But I do find that the TNIV, like the ESV, is a good translation. And most of the criticisms against it have been unfounded. There are different translations philosophies between these two versions (dynamic for TNIV and formal for ESV), but I believe there is room for both kinds of translaitons. I don't know the views of everyone on the TNIV translation committee but I know for sure that Douglas Moo and Bruce Waltke are solid complementarians and they were both on the translation committee. Further, you have folks like Timothy George and D. A. Carson endorsing the TNIV and they would certainly not support any kind of feminist agenda in a Bible. The difficulty in translating a Bible in today's culture is that masculine universals such as mankind or "he" as a representation for both genders no longer communicates to everyone. Part of our problem is that in English we do not have a pronoun that includes both genders like you do in French and Spanish (where such issues are not a problem). Further, words like Ἀδελφοί in James 2:1 have been clearly demonstrated in biblical and extra-biblical Greek texts to refer to "brothers and sisters," not just "brothers" if the context warrants it. Even the ESV translators acknowledge this by adding the footnote "Or <i>brothers and sisters</i>. The question is--if they acknowledge that James is writing to both male and female recipients, why do they not translate it accurately to say so? Yes, the CBMW would disagree with me. I used to be a strong supporter of them, but I've backed off a bit from them in the last couple of years because of their ridiculous reactionary response to the TNIV. I still believe in the CBMW's theology of gender, but I don't care for their recent rhetoric. Please understand that I believe the PCUSA is clearly wrong here. Such usage is outside the bounds of Scripture.

But I don’t buy the slippery-slope language about gender accuracy. I am a complementarian, not an egalitarian, so I don’t have any hidden agenda here. But I do find that the TNIV, like the ESV, is a good translation. And most of the criticisms against it have been unfounded. There are different translations philosophies between these two versions (dynamic for TNIV and formal for ESV), but I believe there is room for both kinds of translaitons.

I don’t know the views of everyone on the TNIV translation committee but I know for sure that Douglas Moo and Bruce Waltke are solid complementarians and they were both on the translation committee. Further, you have folks like Timothy George and D. A. Carson endorsing the TNIV and they would certainly not support any kind of feminist agenda in a Bible.

The difficulty in translating a Bible in today’s culture is that masculine universals such as mankind or “he” as a representation for both genders no longer communicates to everyone. Part of our problem is that in English we do not have a pronoun that includes both genders like you do in French and Spanish (where such issues are not a problem).

Further, words like Ἀδελφοί in James 2:1 have been clearly demonstrated in biblical and extra-biblical Greek texts to refer to “brothers and sisters,” not just “brothers” if the context warrants it. Even the ESV translators acknowledge this by adding the footnote “Or brothers and sisters. The question is–if they acknowledge that James is writing to both male and female recipients, why do they not translate it accurately to say so?

Yes, the CBMW would disagree with me. I used to be a strong supporter of them, but I’ve backed off a bit from them in the last couple of years because of their ridiculous reactionary response to the TNIV. I still believe in the CBMW’s theology of gender, but I don’t care for their recent rhetoric.

]]> By: admin http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2006/07/19/in-the-name-of-the-rock-the-papers-and-the-scissors-we-pray-amen/#comment-390 admin Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:32:38 +0000 http://www.samshua.com/blog/2006/07/19/in-the-name-of-the-rock-the-papers-and-the-scissors-we-pray-amen/#comment-390 Hmmm Rick, did you happen to follow the link to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. They would disagree with your view on the NIV and TNIV "accurately convey[ing] gender of humans when warrented by the context." Also, the point is not that the gender-neutral translations treat the language of the Trinity in this way. But it is instead to say that there is a "slippery slope" of taking the text's original meaning and translating it to mean something more than it should. Essentially, the PCUSA does this with the language of the Trinity. They are saying that it doesn't really matter what you call the Trinity as long as you get the idea of the Trinity. That is further down that slippery slope. Hmmm Rick, did you happen to follow the link to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. They would disagree with your view on the NIV and TNIV “accurately convey[ing] gender of humans when warrented by the context.”

Also, the point is not that the gender-neutral translations treat the language of the Trinity in this way. But it is instead to say that there is a “slippery slope” of taking the text’s original meaning and translating it to mean something more than it should. Essentially, the PCUSA does this with the language of the Trinity. They are saying that it doesn’t really matter what you call the Trinity as long as you get the idea of the Trinity. That is further down that slippery slope.

]]> By: R. Mansfield http://www.wccc.net/blogs/gospelprism/2006/07/19/in-the-name-of-the-rock-the-papers-and-the-scissors-we-pray-amen/#comment-384 R. Mansfield Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:02:21 +0000 http://www.samshua.com/blog/2006/07/19/in-the-name-of-the-rock-the-papers-and-the-scissors-we-pray-amen/#comment-384 I don't know what the PCUSA's view of the Trinity has to do with the NRSV or TNIV. Neither translation attempts to make any change to the Godhead. Rather they try to accurately convey gender of humans when warranted by the context. I don’t know what the PCUSA’s view of the Trinity has to do with the NRSV or TNIV. Neither translation attempts to make any change to the Godhead. Rather they try to accurately convey gender of humans when warranted by the context.

]]>