Report: 75 Percent of TNIV Gender-Related Problems in Updated NIV Bible

[mandym]

A new report by a leading critic of the TNIV finds that 75 percent of gender-related problems in the now-defunct version are retained in the updated NIV Bible.

The Committee on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood this week published a full critical evaluation of the new NIV Bible, concluding that the latest translation "cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language." The findings were consistent with the group's November statement that refused to commend the 2011 NIV (actually copyrighted 2010) due to "gender-related" language problems it previously identified in the TNIV.



http://www.christianpost.com/news/r...-related-problems-in-updated-niv-bible-50191/

 

[Deacon]

From the article:

1 Corinthians 14:33-34
NIV(1984):
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

NIV(2011):
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace – as in all the congregations of the Lord's people.
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

CBMW argued that the separate paragraph on women remaining silent also favors a feminist interpretation of the Bible.
But the report points out that by separating "women should remain silent in the churches" from "as in all the congregations of the Lord's people," the text supports the feminist argument that Paul was only addressing a local problem at Corinth.

The NIV (2011) translation is also found in the AV, ASV, Darby, NASB, NKJV, TNIV, NLT
By the way the verse was divided in the 1500’s, it was a historic translation.

Personally the report by the Committee on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a political move. They've marginalized themselves.

Rob

 

[Jerome]

Ooops John Calvin didn't get the memo either. [In his Commentary he notes that the phrase refers to what comes before it.]

Of course, he was probably a radical feminist with an agenda, though. LOL.

Why is SBTS still hosting this outfit?

 

[jaigner]

This is all complete lunacy. Neither of these translations (I'm partial to the TNIV) are anything other than gender-accurate. When the Bible means men and women, it says so. When the Bible means men, it says that, too.

Weirdness.

 

[go2church]

What a bunch on nonsense! The Council on..... at this point look really, really silly. They keep pointing out these "additions" or "modifications" in these translations and yet nobody seems to care because most of the new translations coming out are following the gender accurate form.

At this point they look like a bunch of old men (it could only be men) trying to keep women from voting or going to school, they are completely out of touch on this issue.

 

[jaigner]

What a bunch on nonsense! The Council on..... at this point look really, really silly.

It's a very pathetic, silly organization.

 

[Rippon]

I just landed on Ameerican soil last Friday. Then,May 7th I bought my 2011 slimline large-print NIV at a local Christian bookstore. I am happy with it.

Today,just as I entered a Reformed Christian bookstore I heard the clerk tell a female customer some nonsense about the 2011 NIV. I didn't initiate the conversation. I was minding my own business. He told her:"We don't sell the new NIV because of its gender problems. We stick with the ESV especially and the NASBU and so-forth."

That kind of misinformation is going to be so prevalent. But dispite the negative hype, the 2011 will retain its popularity. That is,as long as there will not be the boycotts that went on with respect to the TNIV.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Why all the androphobia?

1984 NIV Proverbs 15:5 A fool spurns his father's discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence.

2011 NIV Proverbs 15:5 A fool spurns a parent's discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence. (same as TNIV)

But the Hebrew text has 'ab, which means "father," not "parent." Fifteen other verses in the 2011 NIV make a similar change. Why seek to eliminate "father" when that is the precise meaning of the Hebrew text?

There are no cases in the Old Testament where the singular Hebrew word 'ab means "parent" rather than "father." Hebrew lexicons define this word in singular as "father," not as "parent" (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 3; also Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 1-2). But the new NIV translators in verses like this were unwilling to translate the word with the clear, simple English equivalent "father," apparently because in today's culture it is unpopular to use an example of an individual father to teach a general truth that applies to all parents. Even when that is what the Hebrew text does, the 2011 NIV is often unwilling to allow English readers today to see it. "Father" seems to be a "taboo" word that must be avoided in contexts that teach a more general truth.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Why emasculate the Bible just to make it more politically correct?

1984 NIV 1 Samuel 18:2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.

2011 NIV 1 Samuel 18:2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. (same as TNIV)

Although the Hebrew text in such verses speaks several times of a "father's house" or "father's family" and uses the ordinary Hebrew word for "father" ('ab), the new NIV eliminates the word "father" and substitutes "family" or some other expression. The new expressions remove any suggestion of a father's leadership role in the family. These new NIV verses are not translated accurately, but they are consistent with the new NIV's practice of removing male-oriented details of meaning from the text of the Bible.

 

[jonathan.borland]

1984 NIV Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man (Greek 'anēr, "man") whose sin the Lord will never count against him.

2011 NIV Romans 4:8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them." (same as TNIV)

This is grammatically odd to say the least. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't it read, "Blessed are they whose . . ."?

 

[jonathan.borland]

1984 NIV Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

2011 NIV Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

This is also grammatically odd. So according to the verse, is it one person, is it a group, or is it both?

 

[jonathan.borland]

The last sentence is rather humorous.

1984 NIV 2 Samuel 23:8: These are the names of David's mighty men: Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter.

2011 NIV: These are the names of David's mighty warriors: Josheb-Basshebeth, a Tahkemonite, was chief of the Three; he raised his spear against eight hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter. (same as TNIV)

In an age when books are being written about the way men are staying away from church, it is ironic that the NIV removes David's "mighty men." What man who reads about David's mighty men has not wanted to imitate their courage, their strength against evil, their faithfulness to God in serving their king? But in the new NIV they are no longer men.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I guess "Don't throw like a girl!" is out, too?

1984 NIV Nahum 3:13 Look at your troops-- they are all women! The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has consumed their bars.

2011 NIV Nahum 3:13 Look at your troops-- they are all weaklings. The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has consumed the bars of your gates. (same as TNIV)

 

[jonathan.borland]

The following really is the crux of the matter:

The deepest difference over gender-neutral translations is not really about whether people will be able to understand the Bible today. Rather, it is about whether translators should exclude details that seem offensive in the contemporary culture.

 

[franklinmonroe]

But isn't "father's house" in 1 Samuel 18:2 an idiom? And isn't "all women" in Nahum 3:13 a metaphor? Must they be translated 'literally'?

 

[jonathan.borland]

But isn't "father's house" in 1 Samuel 18:2 an idiom? And isn't "all women" in Nahum 3:13 a metaphor? Must they be translated 'literally'?

It's not an understandability issue. It's about excluding details for no other reason than that they seem offensive to contemporary culture. But certainly you see that the metaphor of Nahum 3:13 is totally removed in the NIV (2011). But why? The answer is obvious to most honest observers.

 

[go2church]

Hogwash. The NIV is not gender-neutral.

 

[go2church]

These arguments are as ridiculous as the KJV only proponents

 

[jonathan.borland]

Hogwash . . . ridiculous.

It's rather you who fits the pejorative KJVO bill more similarly I should say.

 

[David Lamb]

This is grammatically odd to say the least. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't it read, "Blessed are they whose . . ."?

Just like the example given by Martin Marprelate in another thread here.