I bought a TNIV when it came out.  Being me, I liked the gender neutral language.  I think “man” meaning mankind is often read to be not women.  I, admittedly not conservative concerning women in the church, am happy to own a copy of this version.  Little did I know it would so quickly disappear.

1. Judith Says:
   September 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm

   Two other quotes I saw from other articles:
   “And we’ll make sure we get it right this time,” says Keith Danby, president and CEO of Biblica,
   and from translator Douglass Moo:
   “We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction,” Moo said. “All that is back on the table as we reevaluate things this year. This has been a time over the last 15 to 20 years in which the issue of the way to handle … gender in English has been very much in flux, in process, in development. And things are changing quickly and so we are going to look at all of that again as we produce the 2011 NIV.”

   It’s absurd to claim that the reason for the “needed” changes has to do with mishandling of gender in the TNIV. The TNIV is a good translation that was poorly marketed and poorly defended against critics. Clearly, the new NIV caters to the vocal evangelical group that sees problems with gender neutrality.

2. Anne Says:
   September 11th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

   I am surprised the TNIV has not been defended, by those who worked so hard on this translation. I went through and donated a lot of my Bibles. I have my old faithful Study Bible I have had since I was a 12 or so, and I kept the TNIV.