Nathan Busenitz here… (different than “Nathan Williams”)…

As the site administrator, I’m going to ask that conversations and discussions be kept on topic. (I’ve allowed this discussion to go on for the last couple days, but it seems to be getting nowhere.) Nathan Williams’s post had nothing to do with the TNIV or Bible translations. If you want to discuss that issue more, please do so on a thread that is addressing it.

Tim himself already responded to you in the comments section of the original article that offended you (here). He has also discussed the TNIV in other posts (here, here, and here). As he himself said, he is no fan of the TNIV.

As for Grace Church, if you would like to know our ministry’s position on the TNIV, we would be happy to relate it to you. It certainly is no secret.

But please stop using our comments section to attack Tim Challies. It’s immature and inappropriate.

- NB

Is it okay to purposely alter what God has said?

Is it okay to promote such a thing?

Would your guys’ boss approve of these practices?

As to Zondervan, yes, they are the main culprit. However, the Scripture is clear. We are never to promote a lie.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

1. Your real problem seems to be with Zondervan and none of these people speak for Zondervan. Or John MacArthur, for that matter. I’m not sure what John MacArthur has to do with this. You seem to appeal to him as if his is the final word. You’ve made up your mind, so why bother.
2. The problem as you see it has been addressed by Tim, Phil and others – you simply refuse to accept it.
3. You don’t seem to be reading the same thing the rest of us are.
4. Whenever someone attempts to engage with you, you respond with an escalating degree of outrage.
5. You’ve mis-characterized everyone who has attempted to engage with you.(Johnson, Turk, Challies, et al.)
6. It’s off topic.
7. You come across as shrill. You’re in full attack mode and your attacking the wrong people.

Yes, good question. Why won’t anyone answer you?

I did not listen to the entire series of CDs (there are nineteen of them for the New Testament) but the portions I did listen to, primarily from the gospels, were really quite well done. This product is certainly different, but I can see nothing inherently wrong with it!
–Tim Challies

So, yes, he DID recommend it for use.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The fact that we will even consider the use of a tampered-with version is a sea change in Evangelicalism. And not a good one.

I know Tim didn’t give it a ringing endorsement. And I know your eyes won’t fall out if you read the thing.

Here’s my point (and no one seems willing to deal with it at all): In light of all the Scripture’s admonitions to never purposely misrepresent what God had said, why do we monkey with this sort of thing at all? Is it not a dirty thing to do?

It is an extremely sinful thing to tamper with something God has said.

That is such a sin we should have nothing to do with it. Why are we even calling ourselves Christians and yet knowingly so non-chalant to the holiness of God’s Word?

I am not speaking of a translation problem or a dispute over a word or phrase or a point of grammar. It is the actual changing of what God has said. In the case of Zondervan, it is the role of the genders that has been systemically changed throughout. And the history of the TNIV and Zondervan’s run up to its publication make it clear this is not an accident or a translational issue. For instance, in the epistles, “brothers” has been changed to “brothers and sisters,” ineffect changing the primary addressees of the statements given. There is nothing in the Greek word “adelphoi” that automatically includes the “adelphai.” If they are included (and I think often they are,) the primary addressees are still the “adelphoi,” else he would have said “adelphoi kai adelphai.”

In a word, no one has the right to tamper. And if they do, they should be shunned by real Christians. Read Deut. 18:18 and following, Prov. 30:5-6, Deut. 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19.

Why is there no urgency to have the reverential care for accuracy that Scripture demands? Where is the zeal for God? Why do we kneel to the whims of fallen man and tell God He misspoke?

To defend Phil, Frank, and Tim on the basis that they really did not come out and say this is the greatest translation on earth is missing the point. The point is why deal with such a thing at all? We are doing a very sinful thing and God sees.

In addition to that, why pay Zondervan to commit the sin of lying? I rejoice to see the TNIV is not selling that much. Yet, when we do buy TNIV products we are paying them for it and that is forbidden in Scripture. II Cor. 6:14, II John 10 and 11, and so forth.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

I would like to offer a different perspective. I read Tim’s article that you are talking about, and it seems to me that in the context of the article, the phrase: “This product is certainly different, but I can see nothing inherently wrong with it!” seems to be referring primarily to the style of dramatization that is used in this audio Bible. There are comparatively few references to the fact that it is the TNIV as opposed to the dramatization feature.

I really don’t think it would be fair to come away from that article thinking that Tim is giving a thumbs-up to the TNIV. In fact, Tim has already responded to that specific point in the comments, so that should be the end of it.

IF Tim actually approved of the TNIV, then I would agree that he ought to recant that position, but I don’t see that at all in this article.

-Matt

And actually, if you disect the answers of Johnson and Turk, their answers come down to defending the TNIV’s use, ad hominems, and some VERY weak arguments biblically and logically speaking. You can’t point to one argument they made that would not flunk them in a logic class if the rest of their work was similar. Johnson started with an ad hominem argument and both ended without answering the same two questions I have asked you.

Even you have now started the ad hominem with ” You seem eager to accuse Tim of something he has not done.” I gave you the quote and you have read the article. If he did not recommend it for use, why has he not said so himself? After all, he described the project as “well done.” What does that mean?

Why not just answer? Does Dr. MacArthur approve of purposely altered Bible versions? And does God?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The fact of the matter is that Tim still wrote those words whether they are in the comment section or in his regular article and said that he does not recommend using the TNIV for serious study. You seem eager to accuse Tim of something he has not done. I feel that Phil Johnson and Frank Turk did a more than adequate job of dealing with your questions and accusations in the comment section of this thread.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/02/sectarianism-and-separation.html#7581397338194550355

All that needs to be said has been said by them.

Nathan Williams

http://www.challies.com/archives/002328.php

You had to read the comment thread to find a quote that was not positive toward the TNIV. That quote came only after I asked Tim why he was plugging a purposely altered version of the Bible. This quote is actually from the artile:

I did not listen to the entire series of CDs (there are nineteen of them for the New Testament) but the portions I did listen to, primarily from the gospels, were really quite well done. This product is certainly different, but I can see nothing inherently wrong with it!
–Tim Challies

That’s a bit more honest isn’t it?

I await your answers to my two questions.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.