Again for the umpteenth time:
Your #1 lie said on 4/8/2013 at 2:23PM:"The gender issues in NIV2011 tend to dilute the role distinctions between the sexes."
#2 lie said on 4/19/2013 at 2:31 PM:"The TNIV 2005 had renderings placed within due to the influence of evangelical feminism."
#1 they had Junia as an Apsotle, so was bringing in concept of females as such
#2 they made it appear taht women were permitted to reach as a pastoral riole, or at least implied such
"We expect that evangelical feminists who claim that women can be pastors and elders will eagerly adopt this 2011 NIV because it tilts the scales in favor of their view at several key verses. This is especially true because the new NIV changes the primary verse in the debate over women’s roles in the church.
1984 NIV: 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
2011 NIV: 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (same as TNIV, but with modified footnotes)
Evangelical feminists will love this translation because in one stroke it removes the Bible’s barrier to women pastors and elders. As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV, the debate over women’s roles in the church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to “assume authority.”
The NIV’s translation committee says that the translation “assume authority” is “a particularly nice English rendering because it leaves the question open.” In other words, “assume authority” could be understood in two different ways: a negative way (meaning “wrongly assume authority on one’s own initiative
or a positive way (meaning “begin to use authority in a rightful way”). But in saying this the NIV translators fail to understand the full force of what they have done: They have given legitimacy to a feminist interpretation that did not have legitimacy from any other modern English translation (except the discontinued TNIV).
Whether the verb is understood in a negative or positive way, the focus of the verse is now on prohibiting a self-initiated action, taking it on oneself to “assume authority” over men. And so feminists will now quickly say that they are not assuming authority on their own initiative -they are just “accepting” it because others entrusted it to them. In any local church that uses this new NIV, no one will be able to answer their argument from this Bible.
This verse alone in the 2011 NIV gives evangelical feminists the most important advance for their cause in the last thirty years. But the translation is simply incorrect, as many writers have demonstrated in extensive scholarly discussion elsewhere, 13 and as all other modern English translations agree: Even the gender-neutral NRSV translates authenteo “have authority” here along with the NIV, NLT, RSV, Holman CSB, and NKJV, while the NASB, NET Bible, and ESV similarly translate it as “exercise authority.” Thus the NIV is out on a limb here over against the other main modern English translations. And it is out on a limb precisely because of its attempt to be “neutral” on a passage that even the liberal translators of the NRSV have not attempted to make more amenable to an egalitarian interpretation. The verb authente0 here means “exercise authority” or “have authority,” not “assume authority.”
desiringvirtue.com/2011/06/disturbing-changes-to-the-niv
Disturbing Changes to the NIV