• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Today's NIV Bible

S

slider64

Member
I know that I may be opening up for a lot of argument, but I just wanted to get other people's take on the new gender neutral Today's New International Version of the Bible. It was just release a month ago or so and it is drawing a lot of controversy. What do you think the repercussions will be of this action?
 
I know nothing about it. But I will treat it just like any other denomination that decided to make up it's own ideas of what happened and put it into their own words and published the garbage.
 
I'm an atheist so I really don't care. I am curious though. How does the book refer to people? What is Jesus, Moses, Mary?
 
Originally posted by: rpc64
I agree. There's no way the Bible should be changed from what it originally said.
Click to expand...

You don't really believe the King James version is what the bible originally said do you?
rolleye.gif
 
I don't mean languages or dialects or anything like that. Changing something like gender is quite an extreme change to make.
 
When it refers to a specific person like Jesus or Moses it keeps the same reference, but when it comes to others it is a more all inclusive rather than Individual people. It changes many of the passages that referred specifically to man (male) and changed them to include women. At this point, only the new testament is done. In 2005 when the OT is done what will they do about it? Will they change eve and everything thing that today's society would deem sexist? I don't know.
 
It only will use gender neutral terms when the context obviously implies that. Like if Jesus says "If any man wishes to follow me..." it would read "If anyone wishes to follow me..." Not a big deal. Personally, I like to do my own interpretations. It doesn't really matter all that much anyway, seeing as how the NIV is more middle road when it comes to translation/interpretation. If it were a literal translation like NASB, I would raise more of a fuss. But, if they make other interpretations for you to increase readability, then why not do some of the gender translations too. It makes perfect sense.

But, if you're serious about studying scripture, then I strongly recomend getting a NASB. I have an small NIV for carrying with me, but for serious study, I use a wide-margin un-adulterated NASB.
 
Agreed, when reading I enjoy a dynamic translation like the NIV, but when actually studying I prefer the NASB or NKJV. But the way that things are being changed in the Todays NIV is a little much for me. It takes words that God chose very carefully and makes them into someone elses interpretation. What it becomes is a dynamic translation of a dynamic translation.
 
I tell you what. The words God choose very carefully were greek and hebrew. As to which interpretations are wrong, that's a judgement call. I think it's appropriate to translate some instances of "man" into a gender neutral term, because I think it most accurately portrays the original authors intent. Did the author mean "man", or "anyone?" Those are the questions that the translation teams of more interpretive versions need to make. Personally, I like the literal translations, and making my own decisions.
 
And I am in agreement with you on some of it but what I don't agree with is that Gender was a big deal in greek each term having specific meanings. Some references to this are when Paul was talking about death, i believe there are 6 different terms in Greek for death yet he chose depart, the same word that refers to a ship leaving port. Also in reference to eve, there are many different words that are used as her name and each one of them used during different times. I think that we tread on very thin ice when we take terms that were describing individual people or a group of people and changing it to include everyone. Greek is very specific, that is why it is a hard language to learn because they used multiple words to explain what we use one word for. The original text was translated by 4 groups of people each group translated on their own, then switched with the others, they kept switching, until they all had their own back. The interesting thing about this was that less than 1 percent of the total was actually changed. This was the KJV. The today's NIV is no longer a translation but an interpretation. The issue that I have with it is that they don't say that it is an interpretation, they say that it is scripture, that it is a translation. I can just see many people getting confused by this. God chose his words very carefully and he warns against people that change them. So my question is, are they being changed or is it translation?
 
While I am hardly an expert on the subject (agnostic who has not studied the Bible), I personally think that making a gender neutral PC translation could possibly (or even likely) distort the original intent. (Never mind the fact that numerous tranlations have already undoubtedly distored the Bible as it is.)

I think this quest to make everything Politically Correct is asinine. That's just my $0.02.
 
This is not Political Correctness! Let's face the facts, anyone who studies the Bible is already translating Masculine gender language into Neutral gender, otherwise, Women would have no need of Salvation or any other aspect discussed in the English Bible. "English", is to be emphasized, other languages have had Neutral gender terms, thus their Bible translations don't have the same issues.
 
Do people not realize that many times the Bible uses the word "man" or "men" it refers to the race of men, as in humans. It doesn't always mean "male". I agree with the change in the example lebe0024 used not being a big deal, but I don't see why it was needed at all. Is it just so the word "man" does not appear in the Bible anymore? I don't really see a need for this version of the Bible. Anybody with a pulse could tell if it is referring to humans as a whole, or males in particular.

And last I checked, the Bible was originally written in Hebrew. I may be wrong, but I'm almost positive it was Hebrew.
 
I say if this new translation helps reach out to some people and teach them about God, then I'm all for it. Say there's some feminist who wouldn't read the Bible before, but now because it is gender neutral she decides to read and chooses to follow Christ. There will be rejoicing in heaven for her soul. If this new translation can do that, then I have no problem with it.
 
This is the issue:

Right now, good translations (like the NRSV) render many parts that say "man" into a more accurate (to context) gender-neutral term. Most scholars don't have a problem with this, and like J.Dobson said in the link above, they have set forth specific and appropriate guidelines for doing so.

However, the new NIV goes beyond these established guidelines, and puts gender nuetral terms where the context means male, or the context is debated. This is why people are in an uproar.

Now, reguarding "seeker-friendliness". If Scripture (and ultimately the Gospel), is watered down in the name of "seeker-friendliness", then what use is it? I think scripture says a lot of very very hard things to accept, but true reconciliation never comes through dumbing down scripture (and ultimately the Gospel). Are we ashamed of Scripture? Do we think that "oh, that person would never follow Christ if they read that." The way to reconcile hard hard passages, is to humble yourself and desire to know (and believe) what is meant by the passage. (see Mark 4, parable of the sower; or John 6, the bread of life).
 
Originally posted by: zimmie6576
Do people not realize that many times the Bible uses the word "man" or "men" it refers to the race of men, as in humans. It doesn't always mean "male". I agree with the change in the example lebe0024 used not being a big deal, but I don't see why it was needed at all. Is it just so the word "man" does not appear in the Bible anymore? I don't really see a need for this version of the Bible. Anybody with a pulse could tell if it is referring to humans as a whole, or males in particular.
Click to expand...

This is my point exactly, "man" usually means "humanity", Instead of the reader doing the translating, put the real meaning right in the scripture. This is not dumbing down, it's being precise. Why should people seeking enlightment from the Bible also be required to learn to translate as well?

 
Why should people seeking enlightment from the Bible also be required to learn to translate as well?
Click to expand...

They don't need to translate. But, the meaning of scripture shouldn't replace scripture. There was a reason that Jesus told parables to everyone, and then gave only the answers to those who sought him. "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understnad, otherwise they might return and be forgiven."
 
Originally posted by: lebe0024
Why should people seeking enlightment from the Bible also be required to learn to translate as well?
Click to expand...

They don't need to translate. But, the meaning of scripture shouldn't replace scripture. There was a reason that Jesus told parables to everyone, and then gave only the answers to those who sought him. "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understnad, otherwise they might return and be forgiven."
Click to expand...


If the English translation says "man" when it means "humanity", then the reader is being required to translate.

Yes, that's the reason that Jesus used Parables, but that has nothing to do with this subject. If the same method were to be employed as part of proper Gospel spreading, then everyone from the Apostles to current Ministers have been doing it wrong. Jesus was establishing a core group that would survive after he was gone, he wasn't trying to reach everyone.
 
I know that the gender issue is a lot more trivial (in most cases) than the parables. But I used it to illistrate the point that putting in an interpretation of a passage instead of the passage is exactly contradictory towards one of scripture's purposes. I wouldn't want the parable of the sower substituded with "Jesus was establishing a core group that would survive after he was gone," (no offense) because the joy of digging is robbed from me, and because I don't agree with that interpretation. (again, no offense)

But, obviously, in an example of gender neutrality like the one above, I would be ok with them putting in "Anyone who wishes to follow me.." because it's obvious. But, in a lot of instances the gender-neutrality isn't so clear (like some difficult passages in the pauline epistles). So, by all means, don't put an interpretation in there instead of what scripture says there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top