By Elisabeth Bont

Community News Editor

This is the second of two articles concerning the TNIV. Last week's focused on the new translation itself, and this week's will focus on reactions to that translation.

Controversy has continued to escalate since the announcing of the new TNIV a few weeks ago.

The new version -- which contains 7 percent different text from the original NIV -- has come under intense criticism before it could even come to print.

Opponents allege that the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), which translated the NIV and TNIV, and the International Bible Society (IBS), which is distributing them, has backed out on agreements, caved before ideological pressure, and altered the true meaning of the Bible.

The most vocal critics, a collection of professors and conservative public policy organizations that boast members such as Dr. James Dobson and R. C. Sproul, issued an ``open statement'' February 7 urging IBS and Zondervan, which publishes the NIV and will publish the TNIV, to ``reverse their announced direction.''

The statement read: ``In light of troubling translation inaccuracies, primarily (but not exclusively) in relation to gender language, that introduce distortions of the meanings that were conveyed better by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church.''

The IBS is standing by its new translation, however, arguing that its work is not only acceptable but essential for ``ensuring accuracy and clarity'' in translation and helping Christians ``take the Gospel to the ends of the earth.''

``Our mission is to produce accurate and clear Scripture,'' said Larry Lincoln, director of communications for IBS. ``We did not want to be an instrument for further division in the body of Christ.''

Changes between the NIV and TNIV include removal of generic masculine pronouns, increased specificity when referring to Jews and other changes in sentence structure, punctuation and capitalization.

It is the pronoun change -- a change which opponents call ``gender-neutral'' and supporters call ``gender-accurate'' -- that has received the most attention, both positive and negative.

In a recent Detroit Free Press issue, columnist Desiree Cooper argued that ``the IBS isn't going far enough'' because ``one thing will remain the same: God will still be a `He.'''

But opponents allege that the text has been changed too much already, creating inaccuracies and altering the Bible's intended meaning.

According to the Feb. 7 statement, translators have violated the Bible by muting the ``masculinity intended by the authors of Scripture'' and ``indirectly obscuring both the archetypal fatherhood of God (as it is manifested in human's relations), and the true identity of Jesus Christ.''

The translation, they allege, not only alters the Bible but shows a lack of respect for the Bible's authority: ``Evangelical Christians confess the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture,'' the statement read. ``Plenary means `every,' verbal means `word.' Thus God inspired each of the words in the original text of the Bible, not simply the concepts behind those words.''

Such translation is impossible and impractical, said Calvin religion and theology Professor David Crump. A word-for-word translation would be meaningless since languages differ in syntax and are filled with idioms, expressions, and words carrying difficult-to-translate connotations.

The IBS is ``just doing a necessary job in bringing an out-of-date translation up to date in current idiom,'' he said.

``It's fundamental to a proper understanding of the Word of God that it's a contemporary message. When history allows that message to become obscured, we're no longer honoring the intent of Scripture,'' Crump said.

To point out where they see the TNIV falling short of clearly expressing Scriptural intent, the Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has released a list of what it calls ``TNIV inaccuracies,'' including comparisons and critiques on parallel passages.

Predominant are concerns that changes in gender language take away from ``the individual nature of the relationship between a person and Christ'' and are historically inaccurate, implying that women were being referred to in situations that originally pertained only to men, said CBMW Executive Director Randy Stinson.

``The conscious and unnecessary mistranslation of these words by IBS has produced an unreliable edition of the Bible about which all Christians should be concerned,'' he said.

But Lincoln argues that pastors and public policy groups, such as those who signed the Feb. 7 statement, are trained to interpret the Bible but not qualified to judge the accuracy of a translation.

Crump agreed, calling the response a ``knee-jerk reaction.''

``The information just isn't available to make a well-informed response,'' he said.

Members of the Committee on Bible Translation, on the other hand, are well-trained, highly-respected biblical scholars ``from a variety of denominational affiliations and theological backgrounds'' who teach and work at ``the most trusted institutions in the world,'' said Lincoln. ``This diversity creates a system of checks and balances, ensuring absolute accuracy.''

Despite these assurances, opponents also worry that the changes are not a result of advances in scholarship and changes in culture but a desire to be politically correct.

Stinson accused the translators of ``cultural appeasement'' and argued that ``unnecessarily changing the words of the biblical text in order to accommodate those who think certain phrases are offensive is dangerous and irresponsible. The question one must ask is `What will be next?'''

``Differences on linguistic issues should not be confused with social or political agendas,'' said the IBS in a statement issued Tuesday. ``The CBT members have devoted their lives to reaching the world with the good news of the Bible. Accusations that these godly servants have been influenced by feminism or political correctness are false.''

``We're not concerned with anyone's ideology,'' said Lincoln. ``The work of the CBT is driven by scholarship. The critics come from an ideological agenda about the role of men and women.''

Nevertheless, the list of signers expressing concern over the TNIV had reached 35 by Wednesday, according to Baptist Press. And as long as opponents like Dobson feel strongly enough to call the TNIV a ``step backward in the field of biblical translation,'' the debate is likely to continue.