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

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by mandym, May 11, 2011.

  1. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    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/
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    From the article:

    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
     
  3. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    44
    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?
     
  4. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  6. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's a very pathetic, silly organization.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    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.
     
  8. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why all the androphobia?

     
  9. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why emasculate the Bible just to make it more politically correct?

     
  10. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is grammatically odd to say the least. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't it read, "Blessed are they whose . . ."?
     
  11. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is also grammatically odd. So according to the verse, is it one person, is it a group, or is it both?
     
    #11 jonathan.borland, May 12, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2011
  12. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    The last sentence is rather humorous.

     
  13. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess "Don't throw like a girl!" is out, too?

     
  14. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following really is the crux of the matter:

     
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    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'?
     
  16. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Hogwash. The NIV is not gender-neutral.
     
  18. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    These arguments are as ridiculous as the KJV only proponents
     
  19. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's rather you who fits the pejorative KJVO bill more similarly I should say.
     
  20. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just like the example given by Martin Marprelate in another thread here.
     

Share This Page

Loading...