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

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    am I just one man on the island here?

    "While in some places the ESV and 2011 NIV make similar changes, there are many gender neutral changes made by the 2011 NIV that are not found in the ESV. Here is what I see as the difference in approach:

    Some translations, such as the ESV, seem to say, “Where the authors of Scripture clearly have universal intent, the language may be adjusted to reflect gender neutrality.â€￾

    Other translations, such as the 2011 NIV, seem to say, “Where the authors of Scripture are not clearly referring specifically to men or women, the language should be adjusted to reflect gender neutrality.â€￾

    Here is one example, from Philippians 2:4. Note the three translations below:

    KJV: Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

    ESV: Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

    2011 NIV: not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

    In the Greek, all the pronouns in this sentence are masculine. This is clearly reflected by the KJV. But it is also clear that Paul’s intent here is to refer to all believers. This is not an instruction for men only; this is for all believers in the church, men and women. That universality is demonstrated in the ESV and 2011 NIV. Also note that in the 2011 NIV, the masculine pronoun is not used as a gender neutral. For this particular verse, the change is not important. But this approach means the NIV translators have to make interpretative decisions as to when it is or is not acceptable to change what the Bible says. In some places, the changes are not so inconsequential. For instance, note Hebrews 2:6:

    KJV: But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

    ESV: It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?â€￾

    2011 NIV: But there is a place where someone has testified: “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?â€￾

    Note the difference. The context of the passage is Jesus Christ. The author of Hebrews is resounding with praise for Christ and is demonstrating how Christ is truly unique in the world. Here, he points back to Psalm 85:4-6 as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus. In the KJV and ESV, Psalm 85:4-6 retains its gender-specific language, with masculine singular pronouns. In the 2011 NIV, Psalm 85:4-6 has been made gender neutral, using third person plural them in place of third person masculine singular him. But in this the 2011 NIV is inconsistent. Hebrews 2:6-8 quotes from Psalm 85:4-6. In the Psalm, the NIV makes it gender neutral. In Hebrews 2, the translation is mixed, with the first part gender neutral and the rest gender specific. The reason they do this is because Hebrews 2:6-8 is clearly about Jesus. But if the quote is about Jesus, then the Psalm is about Jesus. The Psalmist may not have known what he was writing, but God knew what he was giving. If the intention of the words in Hebrews 2:6-8 is gender specific, the intention of Psalm 85:4-6 is also gender specific.

    Similar examples abound, though I consider Hebrews 2:6-8 to be one of the more serious examples. In a nutshell, though the ESV includes some gender neutral portions, the translators were careful to do so only when the text is clearly universal whereas the translators of the 2011 NIV took an opposite approach, taking a gender neutral approach everywhere except in those passages that they determined were clearly intended to be specific.

    For myself, I am comfortable with the approach taken by the ESV translators but feel the translators of the 2011 NIV have gone too far for the translation "

    www.seektheholy.com/2011/06/20/the-2011-niv-and-gender-neutral..
    Seek the Holy
    The web home of Chris Roberts
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2011 NIV and Gender Neutral Translations

    he sums up how i feel, anyone else here feel same way?
     
  2. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the fact that the NIV2011 is not accepted by very many people would lead one to believe that most agree with you.
     
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Its accepted , but NOT it seems by conservative Christians, especially among baptists!
     
  4. plain_n_simple

    plain_n_simple
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    5
    How could they of gone too far if everything is God's will? They can't. Just like if you get hit by a truck, you should not go to the hospital. God allowed it for His purpose right? Do not pray either because you might be praying against God's will.
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    the Apsotles ALL suffered terrbile things for the cause of christ, did they suffer and experience hardship thru either lack of faith, or failure to apply their powers rightly?
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    I am wondering if that response was sarcasm based on Calvinist determinism.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    It has been # 1 consistently for 30 or so years. What in the world are you talkin' bout' Willis?
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    He has his opinion.However,many conservative scholars would differ with him.

    Rod Decker says:"There is no hint here[in Psalm 8] of anything Messianic. If we had only Psalm 8,we would never suspect that it had any relevance to Jesus." He goes on to say in a footnote that he "would argue strongly for the hermeneutical approach which uses the NT to re-interpret the OT." I have too in the past on the BB despite being a layman.
    Absolutely not. The NIV team approached every instance on an individual basis. They want gender-accurate renderings;not gender-neutral ones as many on the anti-NIV/pro-ESV side claim.
     
  9. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can the NIV 2011 have been #1 for 30 years!!?? What in the world are YOU talking about?
     
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    If someone understands the context, the gender issue is moot. The NIV2011 has taken on unfair criticism.
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Hear,hear.:wavey:
     
  12. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Umm, it's the top selling bible translation in dollars and units
     
  13. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,171
    Likes Received:
    369
    Umm - I know someone says that the ESV is stilted in it's readings but, oh my, the NIV is terrible here!
    "a son of man"? What article goes with that? Is "a" the correct article or "the" because they are not the same thing. Oh - and how many mankinds are there? Mankind is singular.
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Oh,you're right. I should have said that the NIV's since 1978 have been the best selling translations. That's 35 years;not a mere 30. Of course before that the NT only was released in 1973 --a good 40 years ago.
    But don't worry;the KJV is #2!
     
  15. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,171
    Likes Received:
    369
    Since the NIV and the NIV2011 are not the same translation, you can't say that it's a best selling translation. I bet it's going to be dropping in the next number of years.
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Someone? I dare to say many have said the same thing. One day current fans of the ESV will finally recognize that fact!

    The Modern language Bible uses more current English than the ESV. The ESV was based on the 1971 RSV which said in its Preface that it did not want to use up-to-date language. And since the ESV is just a very slight revision. It has left huge swaths of the old RESV alone. No ESV translator has bothered to change the awkward and archaic language.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    There is no archaic language in the ESV. Quite the overstatement.
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Well,according to your logic the KJV isn't the same as the original KJV of 1611;so you can't say it has been the number 2 version for the last 30-odd years.

    Just wishing and hoping,and planning and scheming. If it's not consistently number 1 in the next few years;the NLT will be. On the other hand,don't hold your breath about the ESV.It doesn't have the traction.
     
  19. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Speaking over overstatements. I'd say yours qualifies in a heartbeat. Do you even own an ESV?

    Check out my favorite Lev. 26:1:"You shall eat old store long kept..." LOL!
     
  20. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,171
    Likes Received:
    369
    Yet in this example, the ESV far surpasses the NIV in the ease of reading.
     

Share This Page

Loading...