Today's New International Version

This is not surprising, and was never in doubt. And it will no doubt be in great demand, as evangellyfish have eagerly accepted the equally gender-inclusive NLT.

OTOH, we can pray that this is the beginning of the end for the NIV, and evangelicals will more largely embrace the NASB and ESV.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

You'd think the NIV folks learned their lesson last time. Oh well, I agree with Chris. I think this could and should send conservatives who use the NIV running towards the ESV (I'm wishing for that anyway). I am glad to see that pronouns relating to God or Christ or the Holy Spirit will remain true to the text. Truthfully, I doubt this may have that much affect after all on Bible sales. Generally, the folks who would be interested in the TNIV are already using the NRSV or the NLT.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Why is there so much criticism of inclusive language? Saying "person" where the text says /anthropos/ is a better translation. The NIV text dates from a time (just barely) when it was still common practice to use "man" to mean person or people. That is no longer the case.

Shouldn't the publishers of the NIV (which is, admittedly, not one of my favorite translations by a long shot) seek to make the most accurate translation possible?

Joshua

 

In Koine the masculine plural is generally applied to both male and female, much like mankind generally means humanity.

But in Koine the singular refers to the male gender.

It should be obvious that removing an implied gender from context will change the meaning of a verse, and thereby render the translation weak (at best) or heretical.

I do not have any emotional attachment to the masculine rendering, and as such, I do not think the translation will be weaker should we neuter the masculine plural in those isolated places where the context applies to men and women. I think such a step would not harm the translation.

However, changing every gendered pronoun to a neutral gender exalts our personal prejudices above scripture.

This is just my opinion of course. Given the choice to modify scripture to accomodate my theological leanings, or my wordly assumptions and teachings, I would choose not to.

Searcher.

 

The news release I saw seemed to indicate that where uioi (sons) is used, i.e. "sons of God" the TNIV will adopt "children of God". This is clearly changing Scripture. If the original writer wanted "children" teknon would have been used, as it actually is in some contexts. Also, pater means "father", not "parent." When mere men go on record by declaring God's Word to be politically incorrect, and change the meaning of words to fit the PC rulebook, it is the height of pompous, depraved, arrogance.

It will be interesting to actally see this version and see how far it goes.

 

Doesn't surprise me. I'm sorry, but the whole concept of gender inclusive, politically correct nonsense is really repulsive to me. The NIV must be in the business of ONLY making money. Next thing it will be Our Parents in Heaven insanity.

Give me the NASB any day. I love that bible.
James2

 

My opinion only, but I think this version is gonna bomb and lose money . Josh, I think you are wrong about the gender inclusive language being so common today. About the only people who really talk that way are extreme liberals who have an extreme feminist ideology to push. Normal people don't talk this way. Normal people don't think about junk like this. I actually agree with Chris and James, except to say that I think it would be wonderful if more people decided to learn the original languages themselves and decided to translate the Bible for themselves instead of relying on politically motivated interpretations of the Bible. I am halfway there and hope that maybe someday, God will give me the oppportunity to learn Greek as well.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I like the NIV.
I like the KJV.
I like the NASB.

All that said,
"Our Parent who art in heaven?????"

 

< All that said,
"Our Parent who art in heaven?????" >

Why, of course! That's how it should read, ain't it? Also, forget that "Adam" means Man,, and refer to him(?) as "Person." And then Eve, the Parent of all living,, simply call "Even" or "Before" or something. Be sure their identities indicate they may be both men, both women, or one of each.

And moving on through scripture, change "Abram" and "Abraham" to the Hebrew for Exalted Parent and Parent of Nations. And Jacob had 2 spouses that were siblings, not 2 wives who were sisters-- their gender, of course, does not matter, for we must read this from the point of neutrality. And it was a person from each tribe sent to spy the land in Numbers 13, not a 'man' from each. And don't forget Rahab the prostitute and the 'persons' he or she hid. And into the New Testament, recall the angel who told Mary, "Blessed are you among persons."

Let's get all this right with a new translation effort!

 

If

- at the time it was written, /houios/ (lit: son) meant child, and

- if the clear intent of a text is all people ("sons of God) not just boys, and

- if, in our contemporary vernacular people no longer read words with a masculine gender as inclusive of men and women, then...

- isn't "children" the more accurate translation?

Joshua

 

While I do not favor gender neutrality, I am not convinced by any of ChristianCynic's examples. You use only historical portions of the text, and they should obviously remain in their own gender. (The NRSV and NLT do so). Abraham was a man and his wives were women. But boyh men and women are "sons of God". I assume you would agree with that.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
If

- at the time it was written, /houios/ (lit: son) meant child, and

- if the clear intent of a text is all people ("sons of God) not just boys, and

- if, in our contemporary vernacular people no longer read words with a masculine gender as inclusive of men and women, then...

- isn't "children" the more accurate translation?

Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or we could stick with the words that those inspired to write the Bible by the Holy Spirit choose to write. I'm more comfortable with thier writing than I am by a politically motived group of people with an agenda

UNP
Adam

 

Forever Settled in Heaven -

I am not sure yet what happened to your response but I have looked into it. I know that you have been here long enough to know that postings are some time deleted quickly and I am sure that you were in earnest in your reply. If I were you (which I am not) I would try to construct a carefully worded response that does not personally attack anyone and states that your view is CLEARLY your opinion.
Mind you, I am completely in the blind as to what was stated but this is my guess. Your opinion is valuable to this group of believers but I have found that a "killing with kindness" approach takes one far further on this board than an outright frontal assault. I have seen enough of your postings to know that you are a decent individual. This subject of gender merging in the Bible is very sensitive to many folks on both sides of the issue.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pete Richert:
While I do not favor gender neutrality, I am not convinced by any of ChristianCynic's examples. You use only historical portions of the text, and they should obviously remain in their own gender. (The NRSV and NLT do so). Abraham was a man and his wives were women. But boyh men and women are "sons of God". I assume you would agree with that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The gender language in the Bible should be gender-accurate, but not gender-neutral. As the ESV policy states:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original. For example, "anyone" replaces "any man" where there is no word corresponding to "man" in the original languages, and "people" rather than "men" is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words "man" and "men" are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Similarly, the English word "brothers" (translating the Greek word adelphoi) is retained as an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century. A recurring note is included to indicate that the term "brothers" (adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women, and to indicate the specific instances in the text where this is the case. In addition, the English word "sons" (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because of its meaning as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome. As used by the apostle Paul, this term refers to the status of all Christians, both men and women, who, having been adopted into God's family, now enjoy all the privileges, obligations, and inheritance rights of God's children.

The inclusive use of the generic "he" has also regularly been retained, because this is consistent with similar usage in the original languages and because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it. Similarly, where God and man are compared or contrasted in the original, the ESV retains the generic use of "man" as the clearest way to express the contrast within the framework of essentially literal translation.

In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bigger problem in versions like the NRSV and NLT is the purposeful removal of masculine pronouns wherever possible, not as wherever needed, and even more pernicious is the changing of first person singular pronouns to plural, affecting the meaning of the text.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyfree432:
Or we could stick with the words that those inspired to write the Bible by the Holy Spirit choose to write. I'm more comfortable with thier writing than I am by a politically motived group of people with an agenda <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But remember, if you stick the words that those inspired to write to Bible by the Holy Spirit chose to write, then you would have not translation at all. Translation, of necessity, involves taking the words written and using different words to render them communicative in a receptor language. While I am definitely not siding with gender inclusivity, you must remember that this is a fallacious argument.

 

here's a verse from the TNIV:

(1 Tim 3:11) In the same way, women (who are deacons) are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

The NT can be downloaded in PDF format at


TNIV Preview Edition

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


But remember, if you stick the words that those inspired to write to Bible by the Holy Spirit chose to write, then you would have not translation at all. Translation, of necessity, involves taking the words written and using different words to render them communicative in a receptor language. While I am definitely not siding with gender inclusivity, you must remember that this is a fallacious argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Amen. Learn the original language and you will have the original words. Anything else is simply a translation that is full of interpretations.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph,
I wouldn't say full of interpretations, but it's a fact that no translation is without them at places. Some have more than others obviously.

 

***********
Bible scholars quickly begin debate
of new gender-neutral NIV revision
By Art Toalston


NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The accuracy of the new "Today's New
International Version" revision of the popular New International
Version has quickly become a topic of debate among Bible scholars.

"Accuracy and clarity are prime with us," said Larry Lincoln,
communications director for the International Bible Society, copyright
holder of both the new TNIV and the 1984 NIV.

On the other side of the debate, Randy Stinson, executive director of
the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the TNIV contains
"absolute mistranslations." The CBMW's Internet site, www.cbmw.org,
already cites three key examples.

Lincoln told Baptist Press that the TNIV should be called a "gender-
accurate" translation instead of the term used by some in the media,
including Baptist Press, as "gender-neutral." The TNIV, he said, uses
"generic language" for men and women "only when the text was meant to
include both men and women." An overview of the TNIV is available on
the Internet at www.tniv.info.

Lincoln noted that the TNIV makes no changes in Scripture's male-
oriented references to God and Jesus.

Stinson of the CBMW noted that the three examples of mistranslation on
the organization's website are "representative types of changes that
they've made," referencing the International Bible Society and the
Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), a 15-member group of scholars
with authority over the NIV translation, such as the revision of the
text into the TNIV's gender-neutral language.

Of the changes, Stinson said, "They're significant. They do change the
meaning. These are absolute mistranslations."

IBS and CBT may cite a Greek dictionary lexicon to defend their
revisions, Stinson said, but those revisions "are just not the case
with the major reputable lexicons."

Steve Johnson, IBS vice president for communication and development,
sent an e-mail to Baptist Press after its Jan. 28 news story on the
TNIV, stating: "I wish to state for the record that the overriding
concern of the CBT is ALWAYS accuracy and clarity. While there may be
differences within the body on the specific rendering of Greek and
Hebrew, the influence of social agenda into any translation is NEVER
permitted. We regret that once again, the issue of providing God's Word
to the next generation of English-speakers has become an issue of
division in the Body of Christ."

Several Southern Baptist leaders were quoted in the story as seeing a
thrust for political correctness in the IBS effort to release a gender-
neutral revision of the NIV.

The three references cited by the Council on Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood as mistranslations in the TNIV are:

-- Revelation 3:20: "I will come and eat with them, and they with me."

"The removal of 'him' and 'he' completely drains the passage of the
individual nature of the relationship between a person and Christ," the
CBMW states on its website, noting that the TNIV has "many instances
where the singular generic 'he' is replaced with the plural 'they' or
'them.'"

-- John 11:25, in which Jesus is translated as saying: "Anyone who
believes in me will live, even though they die."

The CBMW's concern: "Not only does this convolute the personal nature
of the relationship between a person and Christ, but it betrays the
fact that Jesus himself used the generic 'he' even though he was
speaking to a woman (Martha)."

-- Acts 20:30: "From your own number some will arise."

The CBMW's concern: "This is problematic because the Greek word for
'aner' is translated 'some' when this is a specific word that can only
mean men. Not only is this a mistranslation but it communicates the
idea that the passage may also refer to women who would 'arise.' Since
this passage refers to the elders, that would not be the case. Even if
one affirms that there actually could have been women elders, it is
still not appropriate to change the translation to reflect this
belief."

"Evangelicals must be able to count on Bible translators to have
accuracy as their primary objective and not cultural appeasement,"
Stinson writes on the CBMW website. "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?'

"As Evangelicals we affirm the verbal inspiration of scripture which
means each word is inspired by God. 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," Stinson
wrote.

The CBMW also complained that "IBS has broken its agreement it made in
[a] 1997 press release, 'The International Bible Society (IBS) has
abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of
the New International Version (NIV).' Although they will certainly
argue that this is not the NIV but the TNIV, the public should not
appreciate this kind of double talk."

Lincoln of the IBS stated that less than 2 percent of the TNIV involves
gender-related revisions of the NIV. Other changes account for 5
percent in an overall 7 percent revision of the NIV, he said.

"We're concerned about a generation of people who are turning their
backs on the Bible because they don't see it as relevant, largely
because they don't understand it," Lincoln asserted, noting that 100
million people in America are under the age of 30 and that language has
changed since the NIV New Testament was initially published in the
1970s.

The TNIV was announced to the public in a Jan. 28 news release by the
International Bible Society and Zondervan, the publisher of the NIV.
The TNIV New Testament will be published this spring, the news release
stated, with the complete Bible "expected in 2005."

Controversy over gender-neutral translation erupted in 1997 when World
magazine, based in Asheville, N.C., reported that the IBS had decided
to produce a gender-neutral NIV for the U.S. market by 2001 but had
made no announcement of its plans. World's 1997 articles appeared in
its March 29, April 19 and May 3 issues. A storm of theology-related
objections was raised by a number of U.S. evangelicals over various
revisions to the NIV.

The IBS, in a May 27, 1997, news release, announced a reversal, saying
it would "forgo all plans" to revise the NIV translation. The Colorado-
based IBS, in its May 27 statement, also committed to revising its New
International Readers Version (NIrV) Bible "to reflect a treatment of
gender consistent with the NIV." The NIrV was a gender-neutral
translation already used in a Zondervan Publishing House children's
Bible. And the IBS committed to negotiate an end to the publishing of a
gender-neutral NIV text already completed by the Committee on Bible
Translation and released in 1996 in England by Hodder and Stoughton.

Also on May 27, 1997, key parties in the controversy found common
ground in a joint statement and a page of suggested translation
guidelines now known as the "Colorado Springs Guidelines," or CSG.
"Specifically, we agree that it is inappropriate to use gender-neutral
language when it diminishes accuracy in the translation of the Bible,"
the statement, released June 4, noted, "and we therefore agree to the
attached guidelines for translation of gender-related language in
Scripture." The statement also noted: "We agree that Bible translations
should not be influenced by illegitimate intrusions of secular culture
or by political or ideological agendas."

However, in announcing its TNIV Jan. 28, the International Bible
Society acknowledged in a separate letter to various evangelical
leaders, dated Jan. 18, that it was "withdrawing its endorsement" of
the guidelines.

Among the statement's 12 signers in 1997 were Bruce E. Ryskamp,
Zondervan's president and CEO; Lars Dunberg, then-president of the IBS;
Ronald Youngblood, now chairman of the IBS board of directors and a
Committee on Bible Translation member; Wayne Grudem, then-president of
the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; John Piper, a member of
the council and senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in
Minneapolis; and theologian R.C. Sproul, chairman of Ligonier
Ministries.

The IBS now has difficulty with the part of the CSG involving "some
very specific guidelines [about translation of gender-related terms]
that those present generally agreed with, or at the time were willing
to endorse," the Jan. 18 IBS letter states, referencing the 1997
Colorado Springs meeting convened by Focus on the Family founder James
Dobson.

"However, upon further review and consideration, and in consultation
with other evangelical scholars, IBS has determined that many of the
technical guidelines are too restrictive to facilitate the most
accurate possible text in contemporary English," the IBS letter states.

In its Jan. 18 letter, the IBS noted that its ongoing work has been
conducted "in accordance with its own guidelines and the guidelines
established by the International Forum of Bible Agencies," which
encompasses "18 of the leading global translation ministries, including
IBS, Wycliffe Bible Translators, United Bible Societies, Summer
Institute of Linguistics (SIL), New Tribes Mission and others ...
responsible for more than 90 percent of the translation work done
around the world [and seeking to do] uncompromisingly accurate
translations in contemporary language."

The IBS letter did not list the other guidelines nor discuss whether
those guidelines address gender-related translation issues.
*****************

"Lincoln of the IBS stated that less than 2 percent of the TNIV involves gender-related revisions of the NIV". Then why change it??

"We're concerned about a generation of people who are turning their
backs on the Bible because they don't see it as relevant, largely
because they don't understand it," Oh please! Men to them makes it more relevant and understandable?