Talk:New International Version Inclusive Language Edition

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A statement added to the article was, “It was subject to accusations that it (NIVI) distorted biblical teaching”. I looked at the article referenced and I could not ascertain how this statement was pulled from it. The referenced article is on the Christians For Biblical Equality website written by Craig L. Blomberg. Can someone help me to understand what the accusations were in reference to distorting biblical teaching? I'm not seeing it. The article is here. Knight1000 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I looked at the linked article briefly and assumed it covered the criticisms. Instead it just answers (some of) them. A quick google search turned up lots of hits. A good place to start is here http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/10.30.html . I'll see if I can find more. Personally, I found the attacks quite shameful - highlighting a few instances where inclusive language might mislead, and ignoring the hundreds where non-inclusive language misleads.

talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Peter, thanks for the follow-up. You stated you removed the POV tag because "it's not POV to state that there was controversy", but you entered into the article "It was subject to accusations that it distorted biblical teaching". That second article deals with the TNIV, not the NIVI. While the translations are probably very close, that article is not about the NIVI. Also, the article made claims of distortions, but no positive proof was put forth. Knight1000 (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the old link also references the TNIV. I think the TNIV and NIVI are the same, but I'll try to find a reference which proves that one way or the other.

talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, it turns out they're different. NIVI was 1996, TNIV was 2002. I found a link on the NIVI from 1997. Feel free to find other refs, or reword.

talk) 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The full TNIV translation was released in 2005. If you want to work jointly on the NIVI section together, I think that would be fantastic. I want to do more reading up on this translation and the reaction it received before I commit to this though. It may be awhile. From what I've read so far, it sounds like there was a reaction and then conviction without even a fair trial first. Neutral articles and information that doesn't mistreat the situation around this translation revision seem to be hard to find. Knight1000 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]