Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by His Blood Spoke My Name, Jun 4, 2007.
New Version of the Gospels changes the "Son of God" to female"
The word blasphemy is thrown around alot on this board, but in this case I think it applies.
The New International Version and other gender-neutral versions are to be avoided. Every Christian needs to shout it from the housetops. They have about as much value as the Book of Mormon and the New World translation.
:1_grouphug: <---praying for Christians to speak out on this critical issue. How many babes in Christ will purchase, innocently, one of these gender-neutral versions?
We gotta have the three wise men!
I can't say that this takes me by surprise, for it is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy:
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)
I agree---this is really sick stuff. What blasphemy!
I think we may have stumbled upon the first subject that everyone on the board agrees upon.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I think I'm in shock.
Reminds me of the debate I've been seeing a lot lately: do we believe in the same Christ or different ones? Though we believe different things about Him, is He the same God or not?
Although the linked article is two years old (June 3, 2005) and I had heard of this "version" before, I still agree with the rest of you. This is nothing more than blasphemy.
Bad Translational Philosophy
This is a case of bad translational philosophy, in which one is not trying to translate the Word of God, but rather trying to "correct" the Word of God based on their personal/political views. This is one of the versions that I told my people about when we were talking about good and bad translations. The bad ones are generally obvious to all.
This is truly blasphemous and sad, it seems we all agree on this. But for those who hate the MV's this is not an example of why you should not use the MV's. That is apples and oranges. Everyone here whether KJVO or MV users can clearly see how bad this is and with one voice condemn it as such.:1_grouphug:
Actually, I didn't see anyone on this thread bring up the MVs vs. KJV issue. That made me happy.
10-4 on the blasphemy
First, the NIV is not considered a gender-corrected version. Second, the gender-inclusive issue is something entirely different than this "Judith..." book. Third, this "Judith..." book is not a translation of the Gospels since it neither a translation, nor the Gospel; the title itself is a lie.
I should have typed the "Today's New International Version." It is not the same as the NIV. My blunder. I think some cite it as "the TNIV".
Sickening stuff. Sad, too, that some people feel the need to change the facts of history in order to improve their fragile self-esteem. The only good thing about it is that goofy novelties like this usually make no lasting impression on anyone, and are quickly forgotten.
DQ , you are so ill-informed . I am not sure at this point that it is intentional ignorance or willful . For you to lump the NIV and TNIV together with the Book Of Mormon and the New World Translation as examples of blasphemous versions is inexcusable . The NIV and TNIV have nothing in common with this heretical LBI version . Before uttering an opinion , please be aware of basic facts .
Let me repeat:
Every Christian needs to shout it from the housetops. They* have about as much value as the Book of Mormon and the New World translation.
*They in context is a gender-neutral version of the Bible, in whatever translation. That has nothing to do with the authenticity of the Bible itself; it has everything to do with man changing what God inspired Holy Men of God to write. I guess to be gender-neutral I'd have to write "it has everything to do with one changing what God inspired Holy Persons of God to write."
Paige Patterson, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that the translators had gone beyond trying to clarify meaning. "They have an agenda - to attempt to force egalitarian and even feminist perspectives on readers in the name of translation," he said. He isn't alone. See the link at the bottom of this page!!
More than 45,000 changes were made in "the TNIV."
Gender-neutral language is employed throughout. "When God created Man, he made him in the likeness of God" now reads "When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God."
At least they didn't tamper with God. And p.s. I didn't lump the NIV in there. Just "the TNIV" and any gender-neutral translation. Translations I heard about just recently read something like "In the beginning a creative force......." and "In the beginning he/she created........."
For additional info see http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.html .. you may want to fix a sandwich and a drink .. it's a long read.
DQ , you made-up the 45,000 figure . And besides , those who think that all or most of the changes made to the NIV were wrong have a lot of explaining to do . Convincing proof as to precisely why the TNIV decisions were wrong would be a good starting base . Only samples of specific verses are dealt with .
In " Translation Inaccuracies" 910 examples are given for the New Testament . And , 2,776 examples are given for the Old Testament .
In roughly 2 thirds of those "examples" the same references are cited for some supposed infractions . Some nuance , or slight meaning was not put in the TNIV text they say . Then in a short time , the translators are accused of tampering with God's Holy Word .
So if we whittle-down those 2,776 verses to the core of 1230 total -- they claim about 300 translation errors in the New Testament , and 900 or so in the Old Testament .
Meanwhile , search out some quality commentaries and see what kind of renderings are given by the commentators . Most may line-up with the choice of the TNIV translators .
I believe that an honest difference can exist between honest conservative scholars . But to cast aspersions on the motives and to assign all manner of evil on the TNIV is just illustrating the depravativy of the stonethrowers .
Are you aware of the quality of the men who are associated with the TNIV ? Examples : Darrell Bock , Ken Barker , Ron Youngblood , M. Silva among others . And some rather bright conservative men who had nothing to do with the translation , but support it wholeheartedly : D.A. Carson , Mark Strause and Andreas Kostenberger .
Are you aware that most charges against the TNIV should also be leveled against the NET , NLTse , NRSV and other good translations ? It is rank inconsistency for the TNIV to be singled out for some supposed blame , when these other translations are approximating the same textual decisons . And I like these other translations .
Do more homework before you make up absurd claims . Get yourself a copy of the TNIV in hardback form to start off . Don't take the word of detractors . Verify things for yourself .
The Gender-Neutral NIV: Reactions from Church Leaders: CLICK HERE for 45,000 changes. http://tinyurl.com/2amd3x
Click Here for a little graphics commentary:
"Adjustments made by what I call the feminist edition are not made in the interests of legitimate translation procedure. These changes have been made to pander to a cultural prejudice.......—J.I. Packer, quoted in World magazine, vol. 12, no. 5 (Apr. 19, 1997).
"We must always be careful taking the cultural climate of our day into consideration when retranslating Scripture because culture will change again. If we as translators and theologians change our view based on what is politically correct, we are going to have Bible translation changes all the time. We believe very much in the authority of Scripture and the inerrancy of God's Word. — Ken Hemphill, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, as quoted by Baptist Press, Jan 28.
"If you issued a 'gender-neutral' version of Shakespeare, it would be the imposition of ideology on what the English bard believed and wrote. To impose this ideology on the writings of Moses, Isaiah, John, Paul, etc. is to change what they wrote and often what they meant. It is fundamentally simply dishonest and grossly unfair .... Thankfully most evangelicals will not buy it," — Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., as quoted by Baptist Press, Jan 28.
"No one is authorized to treat the Bible like silly putty. You cannot apply the changing cultural mores to determine what the word of God says." — William Merrell, vice president for convention relations of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, as quoted in Washington Times, January 29, 2002.
"[The TNIV follows an] agenda of political correctness at the expense of the clarity of the biblical text........ — R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., as quoted by Baptist Press, Feb 1.
"This new publication is nothing more than acquiescence to feminists who are more concerned with the so-called language of 'equality' than they are with the message of the Gospel of Christ ..... nothing more than gradualism toward the slippery slope which will ultimately lead to theological disaster." — Rev. Jerry Falwell, as quoted in World Net Daily, Feb 1.
"In light of troubling translation inaccuracies—primarily (but not exclusively) in relation to gender language—that introduce distortions of the meanings that were conveyed better by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church." — Henry S. Baldwin, Ph.D. (Singapore Bible College, Singapore); Hans F. Bayer, Ph.D. (Covenant Seminary, St. Louis, MO); S. M. Baugh, Ph.D. (Westminster Theological Seminary in California, Escondido, CA); James Borland, Ph.D. (Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA); Harold O. J. Brown, Ph.D. (Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC); E Ray Clendenen, Ph.D. (Lifeway Christian Resources, Nashville, TN); Clifford John Collins, Ph.D. (Covenant Seminary, St. Louis, MO); William Cook, Ph.D. (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY); Jack Cottrell, Ph.D. (Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary, Cincinnatti, OH); Daniel Doriani, Ph.D. (Covenant Seminary, St. Louis, MO); J. Ligon Duncan III, Ph.D. (First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS); Paul D. Gardner, Ph.D. (Church of England Evangelical Council, Hartford, England); Wayne Grudem, Ph.D. (Phoenix Seminary, Scottsdale, AZ); W. Bingham Hunter, Ph.D. (Former Academic Dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Talbot School of Theology); Peter Jones, Ph.D. (Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA); Reggie M. Kidd, PhD. (Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL); George W. Knight, III, Ph.D. (Greenville Presbyterian Seminary, Taylors, SC); J. Carl Laney, Th.D. (Western Seminary, Portland, OR); R. Albert Mohler, Ph.D. (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY); William D. Mounce, Ph.D. (Cornerstone Fellowship, Spokane, WA); Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Ph.D. (First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, GA); Paige Patterson, Ph.D. (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC); John Piper, D. theol. (Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN); Vern S. Poythress, Ph.D., Th.D. (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA); Mark R. Saucy, Ph.D. (Kyiv Theological Seminary); Thomas R. Schreiner, Ph.D. (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY); R. C. Sproul, Ph.D. (Ligonier Ministries, Lake Mary, FL); Bruce Ware, Ph.D. (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY); Robert Yarbrough, Ph.D. (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL).
"The masculine pronoun belongs in almost every language of the world. I appreciate the NIV, and I think they have taken a wrong turn." — J.I. Packer, Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, as quoted by Baptist Press, Feb 1.
Resolutions Against the TNIV
Southern Baptist Convention. In a resolution passed by the 16-million member Southern Baptist Convention at its June 17-19, 1997 meeting in Dallas, the denomination resolved to "urge every Bible publisher and translation group to continue to use time-honored, historic principles of Bible translation ... (to avoid) license with the use of particular terms, including, but not limited to, the use of so-called gender inclusive language."
Conservative Congregational Christian Conference. In its July 20-25, 1997 meeting in Greeley, Colorado, the 40,000-member Conservative Congregational Christian Conference passed a resolution stating that it "would encourage those involved in Bible translation ....... to steadfastly resist the pressures of sinful human culture which would obscure, diminish, or subvert any aspect of God's inerrant truth."
Bibliography and Links
Marketing the TNIV. A compilation of marketing industry comments on the version.
Vern Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005).
Signers of the Colorado Springs Guidelines call upon the representatives from the International Bible Society who also signed this document to honor the agreement.
Statement of Concern signed by 110 ministry leaders on May 28, 2002.
Resolution against the TNIV adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in June 2002.
Resolution against the TNIV adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America in June 2002.
Resolutions against the NIVI and TNIV adopted by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America in 1997 and 2002.
Forum of Bible Agencies refuses to endorse the TNIV in June 2002.
Resources about the TNIV at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Includes files reporting "Evangelical scholars issue joint statement that the TNIV distorts Scripture" and "TNIV Inaccuracies - A listing of over 100 passages incorrectly translated in the TNIV."
The International Bible Society's promotional site for the revision.
Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy Links. A large number of up-to-date links on the subject.
Ian Howard Marshall, "Brothers Embracing Sisters?", Technical Papers for the Bible Translator 55/3 (July 2004), p. 303-10.
Peter Jones, "The Ideological Character of Language and the TNIV," Journal of Religious & Theological Information 6/1 (Jan. 2004 ), pp. 25 - 42. This article maintains that Today's New International Version, despite the publisher's claims to the contrary, is a gender-neutral translation of the Bible that represents an "ideologically egalitarian" agenda. Far from an innocent attempt to reflect changes in modern English usage, the TNIV has been influenced by modern feminist thinking that rejects traditional role distinctions between the sexes.
p.s. "the TNIV" is readily available online. The NIV is in my study.
All of them are wrong ! ... Let that settle in for a while . While I respect J.I. Packer and Al Mohler the most out of all of those who had anything to say ( instead of just a listing of objectors ) -- both are wrong . Basically the common thrust was that the TNIV was a victim of PC . And that is just poppycock ..
You did not address even one thing I had brought up , not one . Oh , maybe the that you have a copy of the NIV in your study . But you do not own TNIV which is very telling .
I guess you do not know that Ian Howard Marshall is a supporter ( not a detractor ) of the TNIV -- you failed to grasp that in the link you yourself provided .