Gender Language in the 2011 Edition NIV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by milby, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. milby

    milby
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just read a 24 page report published by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).

    Conclusion

    "The 2011 NIV makes several noteworthy improvements over the 1984 NIV and the 2005 TNIV, including 933 improvements in accuracy in translating gender language in places where CBMW had criticized the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. And the entire translation process was carried on in a commendable spirit of transparency and openness, for which Zondervan and the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation are to be appreciated.

    However, the 2011 NIV was based not on the current NIV (1984) but on the TNIV (2005). The 2011 NIV retains 2,766 (or 75%) of the TNIV's problematic gender-related translations that led CBMW, and eventually the larger evangelical world, to reject the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. We still consider these 2,766 examples to be inaccurate translations of terms that have male meaning in the original Hebrew or Greek, male meaning that is lost in this new NIV. Therefore, this translation cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language or in its translation of singular and plural pronouns generally. We consider this too high a price to pay for attaining gender-inclusiveness in a translation.

    In addition, the 2011 NIV changes some key verses on women's role in the church so that they favor an evangelical feminist position, especially in translating 1 Timothy 2:12 in a way that differs with all other commonly-used modern English translations and that gives women a wide open door to serve as pastors and elders in churches, contrary to the actual teaching of the New Testament.

    We regret, therefore, that we cannot recommend the 2011 NIV as a sufficiently reliable English translation. And unless Zondervan changes its mind and keeps the current edition of the 1984 NIV in print, the 2011 NIV will soon be the only edition of the NIV that is available. Therefore, unless Zondervan changes its mind, we cannot recommend the NIV itself.

    This report was published by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), 2825 Lexington Road, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40280. http://www.cbmw.org/. (502) 897-4065.

    Permission to reproduce this report in its entirety is hereby granted to any interested party, provided that copies are not sold for any profit beyond the actual cost of production. This report is also available for free downloading at http://www.cbmw.org/. "


    I had no idea about any of this until I read the report. I'm sure those in favor of the 2011 NIV can make their claim sound just as good, so how does one who is not a long time bible scholar know who to believe? .
     
  2. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CBMW is a ridiculous organization that has little credibility at this point. I wouldn't believe them for a minute.

    There were many noted complementarians that worked on the TNIV and the NIV. They are both fine translations.
     
  3. milby

    milby
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    What makes you say they are rediculous? I have never heard of them until today. I looked at everyone mentioned on there site and saw John Piper and John Macarthur's name. They are well respected aren't they?
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    129
    I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

    I would have guessed that they wouldn't like the gender issues, after all that's their baby.

    But I'm surprised that they recognized the improvements!

    I generally don't use the NIV but consult it becaouse a number people in my class use the translation.

    I like the changes and would recommend the translation as a general reading version.

    Rob
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    I tend to go along with you there,for the most part. But some conservative complementarians such as Don A.Carson (a big fan of the TNIV)and Doug Moo --head of both the TNIV and 2011 NIV have spoken at some of their events.

    As are the fine folks who translated the NLTse. Of course, this translation uses even more so-called inclusive language than the "old" TNIV did.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    I agree with the above. Can I quote you on that Rob? ... I guess I just did.
     
  7. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    So woukld you view the more "gender inclusive" translation such as the Niv 2011/NLT as being better to use for study then those who follow more "traditional" views like the Nasv/Nkjv?
     
  8. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some of their members and leaders are very respectable people, but the whole tone of the organization is arrogant and pejorative.

    Yes, a number of my former professors worked on both. There were fine complementarians, as well as egalitarians.

    The heart of the matter is that both the NIV and TNIV are excellent translations done by fantastic evangelical scholars who hold the Bible in very high esteem. The attacks on these translations are baseless, arrogant and foolish.
     
  9. milby

    milby
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate all the replies but have any of you actually read the report? If you have time please do because it seems their arguments are valid.

    By the way I use the ESV myself. But if the new NIV (2011) is going the "way of our world" then I think pastors should be warning their congregations about it.
     
  10. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't the NIV have a scholar who was associated with the "Jesus Seminar" and a homosexual on its committee?
     
  11. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm pretty sure not. Where did you hear this?
     
  12. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have read the report. They are very adept at making their criticisms seem valid, but in reality, they are not. Again, these are fantastic translations, and for my money are two of the finest available today.
     
  13. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am trying to remember, I am researching it now. get back to you in a bit
     
  14. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Marten Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee and Virginia Mollenkott stylistic editor both are homosexuals.

    I cannot find the Jesus Seminar scholar right now.
     
  15. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think that there was a lesbian on the "artistic" commitee on the 1984 NIV version...

    She was ONLY involved in deciding if the translation in English was "smoothed" sounding/reading, was 'good grammer" as per preface, the scholars did the translating into English, and then they reviewed to see if reading smoothly...

    she had NOTHING to do with the translation in regards to axtual work from hebrew/Greek into English!

    Bogus stuff that that extreme KJVO have used in past against Niv!
     
    #15 JesusFan, Dec 9, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2011
  16. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0


    You continue to discredit yourself and make absurd statements and broad brush assumptions. I am not now nor have I ever been KJVO. In fact I typically use the ESV. But having a homosexual serve on this committee in any capacity is very problematic.
     
  17. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    was just addressing the question that was asked about there being a Homosexual on the Niv commitee..

    there was one known, but again, had NOTHING to do with the actual translation of the Niv itself, did NOT put a "pro gay" bias in it, as had been hinted at with this accusation!

    And yes, those holding to KJVO have used this arguement to level charge that the NIV was a :bad" version!
     
  18. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    It brings into question the entire committee's judgment for even allowing one on the committee. And in fact there were two of them. A scholarly committee translating scripture needs to have far better judgment. That brings into question the reliability of the translation.

    I never said they didn't. But you framed your statement in the context of this criticism was created by them and implied it was only KJVO argument. That is false.
     
  19. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    This is an overstatement. Listen, there is some stuff I get from CBMW that I roll my eyes at, but some of it is good. It is not an organization bereft of intellectual or theological leadership. They have an agenda, yes, but name me an organization that doesn't. Also, I would challenge you, or anyone to show me where they err biblically. Not ad hoc criticisms but something substantive where they can't make their point and remain biblically authentic.

    I agree with this.
     
  20. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Prove it. This kind of statement requires proof. Listen I'm all for hearing you out, but prove it.

    Any development, or smoothing, is part of the translation process. I still challenge you to produce actual evidence of this claim. It is highly incendiary.
     

Share This Page

Loading...