The NIV Is In Good Company

[Rippon]

Utter nonsense has been thrown about regarding the use of inclusive language. Some prattle on and on about the sanctity of retaining man and he when reference is made to be people in general. Well, I would like to give some examples were the NIV does not stand alone among Bible translations in this regard. The translation methodology of the NIV and other Bible versions is not driven by some feminist plot. Simply, these translations give renderings in clear, natural language. It's the vernacular we speak in the second decade of the 21st century.

Genesis 6:7
NIV : "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created."
NLT,CEB : human race
GW : humans
LEB, NET : humankind
ISV,NAB,NRSV : human beings

Genesis 9:6
NIV : "Whoever sheds human blood..."
NET,ISV,GW,CEB : human blood
NLT : human life
NRSV : the blood of a human
NAB : the blood of a human being

Exodus 32:28
NIV : "...three thousand of the people died."
NLT,GW : people died
NRSV,NAB : people fell
LEB : persons fell
WEB : there fell of the people
CEB : people were killed

2 Samuel 24:15
NIV : "...seventy thousand of the people...died
CEB,NAB,NLT,NRSV : people died

James 1:12
NIV : "Blessed is the one..."
NET : the one
NRSV : anyone
LEB : the person

James 1;20
NIV,NLT,NET,LEB : human anger

 

[Rippon]

I gave two examples from the book of James. I will give some more here. Remember, this is not exhaustive --just representative. There are wordings in other versions that also use inclusive language in these passages.

1:7
NIV,LEB,Mounce,NAB,NET : that person

1:19
NIV,NET,LEB : someone

2:20
NIV,LEB,ISV,ESV : foolish person
NRSV : senseless person
Mounce : shallow person

2:24
NIV,NRSV,NET,NAB,Mounce, LEB,ISV,GW,ESV,CEB : a person

3:8
NIV,LEB,ESV : no human being
WEB : nobody
NRSV, NASU,Mounce,ISV,CEB,GW : no one

5:16
NIV,NLT,WEB, NET, NAB, mounce, LEB, ISV, HCSB, ESV, CEB : righteous person

5:17
NIV,NRSV, NET, NAB,LEB : human being

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem with your assertion though is that there is an evangelical feminism at work , trying to undercut the support of the bible for just male leadership, and they want to get the text amended to allow for one to have the option to allow for women pastoring for example...
And that many have problems with the bible being "parochial" in its tone, but God Himself has made the call in male leadership, and female subordination in a biblical contex, despite misguided efforts to get that changed to reflect" current cultural understandings"

 

[Rippon]

The problem with your assertion though is that there is an evangelical feminism at work , trying to undercut the support of the bible for just male leadership, and they want to get the text amended to allow for one to have the option to allow for women pastoring for example...
And that many have problems with the bible being "parochial" in its tone, but God Himself has made the call in male leadership, and female subordination in a biblical contex, despite misguided efforts to get that changed to reflect" current cultural understandings"

Who is the source of that unfounded information?

Do you have a problem with the NET,Mounce and LEB agreeing with the NIV in using inclusive language in my examples so far? If so, why?

 

[robustheologian]

In undergrad since all my religion classes used the NRSV, I liked the mediating approach it took between formal and dynamic translation. However, I was always turned off by the lengths it would go for gender neutrality. I then fell in love with the NIV because it embraces a similar mediating translation philosophy and handles a lot of passages better than the NRSV. I especially like the improved accuracy of the NIV2011.

 

[Yeshua1]

In undergrad since all my religion classes used the NRSV, I liked the mediating approach it took between formal and dynamic translation. However, I was always turned off by the lengths it would go for gender neutrality. I then fell in love with the NIV because it embraces a similar mediating translation philosophy and handles a lot of passages better than the NRSV. I especially like the improved accuracy of the NIV2011.

Even though it at times seems to be watering down the clear intentions of the lord in regards to male headship/authority in the home and the local church?

And wants to at times take the meaning of the Son of man as referring to Jesus, and instead make it apply as more like a common term for people in general?

 

[robustheologian]

Even though it at times seems to be watering down the clear intentions of the lord in regards to male headship/authority in the home and the local church?

I've read through it completely and never got that from it. I'm sure you're referring to it's effort to be gender neutral. Those passages where gender neutrality is expressed is the same translation you would getting translating from Greek and Hebrew yourself. The new NIV has been getting a lot of heat from people regarding that but it's not what everyone is making it out to be. Even in 1 Timothy 2:12, where it uses 'assume' is a preferable translation. First, the primary definition of αὐθεντεῖν would be to literally assume to have authority. Second, if one takes 1 Timothy 2:12 to mean "have" authority, the word "assume" would mean that too. Third, (and this is a personal preference) it's very similar to the KJV's translation "usurp".

And wants to at times take the meaning of the Son of man as referring to Jesus, and instead make it apply as more like a common term for people in general?

Now this I can understand. While the NIV2011, does much better than the TNIV in these passages, there are still places where it would have been better to place "son of man" in the actual text and note it's possible gender neutral meaning in the footnotes.

It must be said that there's NOT ONE English translation that gets gender translation right all the time. With that being said, I think it's unfair to hold the NIV to a standard that no other translation meets.

 

[Rippon]

I've read through it completely and never got that from it. I'm sure you're referring to its effort to be gender neutral.

Correction : It tries to be gender-accurate.

Those passages where gender neutrality is expressed is the same translation you would getting translating from Greek and Hebrew yourself. The new NIV has been getting a lot of heat from people regarding that but it's not what everyone is making it out to be. Even in 1 Timothy 2:12, where it uses 'assume' is a preferable translation. First, the primary definition of αὐθεντεῖν would be to literally assume to have authority. Second, if one takes 1 Timothy 2:12 to mean "have" authority, the word "assume" would mean that too. Third, (and this is a personal preference) it's very similar to the KJV's translation "usurp".

That is right.

I think it's unfair to hold the NIV to a standard that no other translation meets.

But critics try, don't they. Double standards and lack of consistency are their stockn'trade.

 

[Rippon]

Even though it at times seems to be watering down the clear intentions of the lord in regards to male headship/authority in the home and the local church?

You are unable to receive correction. I have demonstrated how false your claims have been since Day One. But you still persist in your falsehoods.

You tell me me how these verses from the NIV support your baseless charges.

1 Cor. 11:3 : but I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Cor. 11:8 : For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.
1 Cor. 11:9 : neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Titus 1:6 : An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe.

 

[Rippon]

And wants to at times take the meaning of the Son of man as referring to Jesus, and instead make it apply as more like a common term for people in general?

I'll make citations from How To Choose A Translation Foe All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss.

"It can hardly be denied that the psalmist is speaking inclusively rather than exclusively in Psalm 8. He does not mean, 'what are males...' but rather 'what are human beings...' All commentators agree that 'enosh and ben'adam are generic references to humanity.

"Most commentators also agree that this same meaning applies to the use of the psalm in Hebrews 2:6-8. The author is not claiming that the psalm refers exclusively to Christ, but the destiny of humanity as expressed in the psalm...The reference to [them] in verse 8 is not to Jesus but to humnkind. Though man's (=humanity's) original destiny was to be crowned with glory and honor and for creation to be subject to him (see Gen. 1:28), 'at present we do not see everything subject to him.' In its present fallen state humanity has not achieved its true destiny.

"...Psalm 8, both in its Old testament context and in its context in Hebrews, is about God's intention for humanity. Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (pgs. 106-107)

 

[Rob_BW]

Like Robust, I had an NRSV in my sole undergrad religion course. The old Oxford Annotated. Which I still keep around as it's my only hard copy of the Apocrypha.

Later, I was looking for a study bible which was less liberal, and the HCSB had just come out. I bought a copy, and it's been my constant companion since.

After looking through the OP, I'm still happy with my choice.

 

[evangelist6589]

Utter nonsense has been thrown about regarding the use of inclusive language. Some prattle on and on about the sanctity of retaining man and he when reference is made to be people in general. Well, I would like to give some examples were the NIV does not stand alone among Bible translations in this regard. The translation methodology of the NIV and other Bible versions is not driven by some feminist plot. Simply, these translations give renderings in clear, natural language. It's the vernacular we speak in the second decade of the 21st century.

Genesis 6:7
NIV : "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created."
NLT,CEB : human race
GW : humans
LEB, NET : humankind
ISV,NAB,NRSV : human beings

Genesis 9:6
NIV : "Whoever sheds human blood..."
NET,ISV,GW,CEB : human blood
NLT : human life
NRSV : the blood of a human
NAB : the blood of a human being

Exodus 32:28
NIV : "...three thousand of the people died."
NLT,GW : people died
NRSV,NAB : people fell
LEB : persons fell
WEB : there fell of the people
CEB : people were killed

2 Samuel 24:15
NIV : "...seventy thousand of the people...died
CEB,NAB,NLT,NRSV : people died

James 1:12
NIV : "Blessed is the one..."
NET : the one
NRSV : anyone
LEB : the person

James 1;20
NIV,NLT,NET,LEB : human anger

Hmm... You may be correct in your assertions. I am a NIV user and have used the 2011 version a little. What I do not understand is how the ESV can render these same verses with a male authority rather than being gender neutral. Is the Greek really that neutral in this matter.

 

[Rippon]

Ex. 2:11
one of his people ESV NIV HCSB
one of his own people GW ISV NET

Numbers 1:16
of their ancestral tribes ESV CEB HCSB NAB NET NLT NRSV ISV NIV
of their ancestors' tribes LEB GW

Matthew 12:31
will be forgiven people LEB NAB ESV
people will be forgiven GW HCSB NET NRSV

 

[robustheologian]

Hmm... You may be correct in your assertions. I am a NIV user and have used the 2011 version a little. What I do not understand is how the ESV can render these same verses with a male authority rather than being gender neutral. Is the Greek really that neutral in this matter.

Context is king.

 

[Yeshua1]

Interesting though that neither jesus nor His inspired apostles would take that viewpoint, as they all would see jesus as being the fulfillment of the prophecy of daniel and the psalms concerning one like the Son of man!

 

[Yeshua1]

isn't the simple truth though that some have insisted that the traditional renderings into English have implied and assumed a male headship pattern, which they will not support?

They wish to have it gender neutral, and yet the lord Himself has a pattern of male headship in both the church and the home?

 

[Rippon]

They wish to have it gender neutral, and yet the lord Himself has a pattern of male headship in both the church and the home?

You have a habit of stating false things on a regular basis.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have a habit of stating false things on a regular basis.

Are you saying the God does not have a pattern of headship, for male leadership in the family and church then?

 

[Rippon]

Are you saying the God does not have a pattern of headship, for male leadership in the family and church then?

That's another lie.You consistently utter falsehoods.

You know exactly where I stand because I have made myself quite plain with you for a decade. You "ask" the same questions over and over. I answer with clarity. You "ask" again. I answer. I am sick and tired of your stale routine. The LP is worn out.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know where you stand my brother, but can you honestly say that all of the translators see this traditional male head ship/leadership to be biblical though?