Another bible translation??? Zondervan is again involved in promoting a new bible translation as many are well aware. Efforts have been taken to create the TNIV translation or Today's New International Version. {This endeavor was stymied in 2002 after effort was exerted to put forth this translation. The TNIV project at that time was abandoned.} This version boasts a gender inclusive translation. The aim is to appeal to "the global English speaking audience" according to Douglas Moo who is the chair of the Committee on Bible Translation . Douglas Moo is a renown New Testament scholar in his own right and I am sure he and Zondervan's interests are genuine.
The concern though surrounds how much of the gender inclusive language will be interpolated and how the spirit/meaning of the text will be jeopardized..Moo himself conceded this uncertainty and ambivalence at one point (in 2009 I believe) when admitting that the committee has not yet decided on how much of the gender-inclusive language would be included in the TNIV.
This development of course has been met with much consternation and disputation. At the heart of this discourse is translation philosophy which is a highly sensitive subject matter. As well it should be when handling a corpus of divinely inspired literature.....the BIBLE; God's inerrant and authoritative word that is god breathed.
Should the emphasis on bible translation be word for word (formal equivalence, literal) or thought for thought (dynamic equivalence)??? It seems though that word for word should be primary for words are what give rise to subsequent thoughts in the minds of those receiving a message, or letter and words are what those aiming to convey thoughts employ to have their thoughts understood.
In stands to reason that if every word of Scripture is inspired then translators should aim for a word for word translation or formal translation. Of course there are cryptic implications or meanings in the original language not as accessible to certain words say in English which must, necessarily be paraphrased. Even then though the natural meaning of that word or cluster of words is derived from the natural construct of the context based upon the actual meaning of words that are accessible and have a formal equivalence that lends a reliable paraphrase.
In any account word for word translation much have precedence; especially when maintaining verbal plenary inspiration. This of course means that every word of scripture is inspired of God throughout the entire canon of holy writ. As Al Mohler postulates, "If we believe in a verbal doctrine of inspiration, then how can we believe in anything less than a verbal concept of translation?...If we really believe in verbal plenary inspiration, then the words are important"
Many will suggest that this is just quibbling over words. Well the words that God, who is omniscient, chose to reveal in the providential way and manner in which He did is of unequivocal importance. The words we have within the bounds of scripture God chose to reveal through the spectacles of that particular culture with all of its natural connotations and denotations. It just so happens that God revealed himself through the Hebrew and Greek dialects especially, both technically and actually. It wasn't accidental or happenstance. As such the verbal, social, societal, mental, and conceptual constructs et al are inextricably bound to the text in a manner of a sovereign Gods choosing and should be preserved formally in translation.
Credo ut Intelligam
