• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Any one else think the Niv 2011 went to far in gender Inclusive language in revision?

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
point is that the Niv 2011 seems to subtle changed some of the rendering to give impression that she was, that females could be pastors etc!

Uh,no,it doesn't lead to your wild conclusion at all.

In 1 Timothy 3:2-7,for instance take a look at the pronouns regarding the office of overseer(elder)

v.2 faithful to his wife
v.4 his own family
v.5 his own family,how can he
v.6 he...he
v.7 he

And in Titus 16-9

v.6 to his wife,a man
v.7 he
v.8 he
v.9 he...he
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
the Esv "updated', as has the Nasb, but neither of them went into the gender language nearly as much!

The 84 NIV didn't use inclusive language nearly as much as the ESV has.

See,two can play at that game.
 

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
The NASB was last updated in 1995, 18 years ago, lots has happened in that time.

The ESV set out intentionally not use gender language, though it does more then most think and definitely in the footnotes. In a very real sense they started with the the end in mind regardless of what the language might actually say!

Both are fine translations, even used ESV for a while myself, just got tired of having to explain the what was being said. Still believe the best translation is the one you read.
 

mactx

New Member
there were 13 Apostles. All hand picked by Christ. (not counting Judas)
Junia may have been a disciple but she was NOT an apostle. Those are clearly named and there was not 1 female on the list.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The 84 NIV didn't use inclusive language nearly as much as the ESV has.

See,two can play at that game.

that is why the 1984 is superior to either the 2005/2011 revisions of it!
just curious, how does the HCSB stand in regards to Gender inclusive renderings as compared to either niv/esv?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The NASB was last updated in 1995, 18 years ago, lots has happened in that time.

The ESV set out intentionally not use gender language, though it does more then most think and definitely in the footnotes. In a very real sense they started with the the end in mind regardless of what the language might actually say!

Both are fine translations, even used ESV for a while myself, just got tired of having to explain the what was being said. Still believe the best translation is the one you read.

the Nasb 1977 actually would be superior to use for superior study then the 1995, as when they 'smoothed it over', seemed to have lost something in the translation!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
that is why the 1984 is superior to either the 2005/2011 revisions of it!

So because the 84 NIV uses far less gender-accurate language than the ESV, do you want to conclude that the former is a better version based on that criteria?

just curious, how does the HCSB stand in regards to Gender inclusive renderings as compared to either niv/esv?

You know,for someone like yourself who has made wild,unresponsible claims against the NIV;I will not give you the satisfaction of answering your question until you do your own "responsible" homework.

You need to come clean about your lies first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So because the 84 NIV uses far less gender-accurate language than the ESV do you want to conclude that it a better version based on that criteria?



You know,for someone like yourself who has made wild,unresponsible claims against the NIV;I will not give you the satisfaction of answering your question until you do your own "responsible" homework.

You need to come clean about your lies first.

why is it wrong to disagree with you that the Niv 2011 was an inferior revision for the 1984 Niv?

i am NOT anti Niv, i like and use the 1984, just anti 2005/2011!

how much stock do you have in harperr-Collins?
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
why is it wrong to disagree with you that the Niv 2011 was an inferior revision for the 1984 Niv?

That was not the source of my displeasure and you know it.

Just make an effort to tell the truth. Christians need to tell the truth.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That was not the source of my displeasure and you know it.

Just make an effort to tell the truth. Christians need to tell the truth.

i was just refernecing what others that I listed and quoted said in regards to this, are ALL of us wrong, and you are right?
 

Amy.G

New Member
the Nasb 1977 actually would be superior to use for superior study then the 1995, as when they 'smoothed it over', seemed to have lost something in the translation!

I have both but haven't really noticed much difference (other than the poetry books of the 77). Can you give some examples of the smoothing over?
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
i was just refernecing what others that I listed and quoted said in regards to this, are ALL of us wrong, and you are right?

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."
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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
 

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
So keeping woman out of the pastorate hangs on just one verse? I was always told to very leery one verse doctrines.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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)

KJV:"But I suffer a woman not to teach,nor to ursurp authority over the man,but to be in silence.

The words usurp and assume are related. Is the KJV showing an egalitarian bias? Of course not. And neither is the NIV.

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 above is transparently silly. With one fell swoop,one verse rendered "assume" is going to amount to women becoming pastors! It's downright KJVOish-sounding. The logic is inane.

This verse alone in the 2011 NIV gives evangelical feminists the most important advance for their cause in the last thirty years.

Refer to what I wrote above.
_____________________________________________________________

Paul O. Wendland of WELS wrote an article about the NIV's redering of 1 Timothy 2:12. And even though he is in favor of wording it exercizing or having authority,he sees the NIV's redering as acceptable.

"But does the NIV11's translation teach false doctrine? That I believe is the real question. And the answer to it seems to be,'No.' I do not find the CBMW's argument convincing when they say that 'assume authority' must be understood as 'assume authority on one's own initiative.' If I would say in a conversation,'The president assumed office today,' would anyone think,'He means the president is assuming office on his own initiative'? I have a hard time believing it.

In fact,I think that if a reader...were to simply read this entire passage in context,he or she would most likely think,'Paul does not want women to teach men in an authoritative way.' What is more,I fail to see any great difficulty involved in explaining the truth of God's Word from this passage--even the NIV11's wording....The NIV11 still says that the husband/man is the head of the wife/woman. The NIV11 still says that the overseer in the church is to be 'faithful to his wife.' How has a wide open door been given to women pastors when the NIV11 says these things? Just as gender roles could be taught on the basis of the KJV,in spite of 'usurpt authority' in 1 Timothy 2:12,so it will be possible to teach gender roles on the basis of NIV11."
 

mactx

New Member
So keeping woman out of the pastorate hangs on just one verse? I was always told to very leery one verse doctrines.
No. Both Peter and Paul state this and it is even apparent in the lists of qualities for Elders (Bishops) and Deacons.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So keeping woman out of the pastorate hangs on just one verse? I was always told to very leery one verse doctrines.

No, but the point here is that the Niv 2011 is ONLY modern version to translate it in this fashion, were ALL other ones wrong regarding that?
 

go2church

Active Member
Site Supporter
Regardless of translation this is difficult passage and requires interpretation. This seems to be escaping you.
 
Top