What is going on????

Hi Bear ///PS
Please no KJVO debate. But does someone have some insight into what is happening here?///

respected.

I have a good book on the subject right before me: The Gender - Neutral Bible Controversey muting the Masculinity of Gods words by Vern S Poythress and Wayne A Grudem.

this is a good topic of concern

To understand what is going on we must remember the flopped TNIV and understand why it flopped.

The TNIV was to drastic for the time, even the Big names like Dobson and Mcarther and other influenced by (CBMW) came out against it because of the Gender-Neutral translations.

Zondervan had Rob Bell strongly promoting it even giving it away in his church and advertising on the computer for it, But with those like Mcarther puting out sermons in opposition to it, it flopped and flopped hard.

So they made some improvements with the 2011 over that of the TNIV but still retained some of the Gender-Neutral language of that of the TNIV, they even made some improvements over the 84' such as eliminating some of the sarx = sinful nature, probably because of NKJV's Zane Hodges critisism of the 84's mistranslation,
the 2011 also translated openly where they had been critisized of translating in secret for the TNIV.

But they still have retained some of the gender-neutral translation from that of the TNIV that was not included in 84'.

They tell me that you have to boil a live frog slowly, the TNIV turned up the heat a little to quickly, the frog jumped out, the 2011 has turned up the heat just to the point that most frogs will stay in even though perhaps feeling a little discomfort about it.

BM wrote /// I have to think it is more than money?///

Yes, our culture is changing and inorder for bible believers to change with the culture, the Bibles they use will need to change with the culture.

I think the Queen James Bible is a little more than christians will except right now, but hey give it 20 years

///what is the reason I am getting bad vibes off this current NIV upgrade? ///

could be an unction

‘Queen James Bible’: Now There’s a Gay-Friendly Version of Scripture

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=47752&forum=48

Is marriage between two people or a man and woman?

I can't believe that someone who would call themselves Christians... Would so easily fall for this anti-christ agenda that seems to be overtaking the Western Nations..

Christinyou,
very good point!

And I always thought that God created them male and female and that one of each gender was intended to be joined together in marriage covenant to be one flesh...I really dont think God wanted it any other way! There is no Biblical evidence to support the notion of "homo-marriage"!

I think probably a "geneder neutral" ahab-jezebelised sort of "bible" is needed by false prophets and false teachers to appeal to those crazy "smash the patriarchy" new age feminist earth mother type of people who have operated in witchcraft in the churches, and insist on directing "worship" (???) at diana/isis/ishtart etc, the emergent apostate church needs such a flaky and misleading reinvented reinterpreted sin-denying, hell-denying, Jesus-denying "translation" to keep those folks within the fold of their dangerous and counterfeit universalist religion, and keep hidden the true character nature and purposes of God.
It surely is a serious thing to tamper with God's Holy Word, to deliberately distort and change its meaning to suit an anti Christian agenda, but sadly many induloge themselves this way. Ony recently a deluded English Bishop made headline news for all the wrong reasons:-

The Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, suggested it was time to 'rethink' attitudes towards allowing same-sex couples to marry, as Christians did with slavery and apartheid. He argued that attitudes towards homosexuality have changed 'considerably' over the last fifty years and that the development of gay marriage would be a 'very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage......" Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience. Before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as Biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation. Similarly in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid because it was Biblical and part of the God-given order of creation. No one now supports either slavery or apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has".

He evidently gives more weight and credibility to a humanist pseudo intellectual socio-political man centred "interpretation" than the leading of the Spirit of Jesus, that insists we die to our old nature and its lusts and appetites

"And be not conformed to this world: but be you transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

It sure is risky to put more trust in our interpretation (which very often becomes a lucrative sideline industry in itself with all the theology schools and professors arguing and trying to defend their big ego points of view (opinions prejudices and preferences basically, almost always hostile to the Holy Son of the Living God)...When he says "our" interpretation, he is of course referring to the elite of deceived luciferian NAR and other apostles of satan who presume to organise Gods Church-without reference to the sound use of Scripture and the leading of the Holy Ghost, and are "always learning never able to acknowledge the truth"

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you travel on sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." etc

Bear said, "There are many good translations ranging from the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc."

I agree.

One thing I might say about gender neutrality (not that I am in agreement with the gender neutrality agends)is that there are in fact many places in the New Testament where the original Greek means "person" (whether male or female) and not "man," as the KJV usually translates it.

...And I still think the profit motive figures very highly in the production of this new NIV. I'm hoping that by what they've done in trying to eradicate the old NIV, and the growing concern for the gender issue in the new one, they will find themselves in serious financial trouble. I for one would be happy to see the Not Inspired Version go the way of the dodo.

Allan

I appreciate your "humble opinion," Greg and that you "have always enjoyed the NIV in measure..."

I likely should not have said what I said in my last post. There are many who use the NIV and I would not want to undermine the faith of anyone.

And it's true that we who use the English language have a lot of translations available while other languages have none.

So I hope that those who use the NIV will take advantage of the available resources, and compare it with some of the other translations. I use the KJV myself, but I compare it with other translations. Even the NIV. :)

Allan

Bearmaster,

Please consider the True Author of Scripture who resides in you is grieved. He does not recognize nor affirm these writings.

Gender neutrality is a key foundation for feminism and same sex parenting.

Try to look into the backgrounds of those who created the 2011 edition and whether they profess Jesus Christ or not. Maybe, you will discover their agenda or if they are just plain ignorant (if even possible).

Hi Greg,

Greg wrote ////the ESV itself is a well done translation and I have no large issues except to recognize the fact it was translated mostly if not solely by Calvinist theologians and has been adopted as the newer translation that reformed churches embrace. Again anyone can use this translation but we have to understand the background motivations etc.///

Are you aware of any Calvinist biaseness inserted in the text of the ESV ?

I ask because I was aware of the reality of the mostly Calvinist translators of the ESV, and was supprised when I looked into most of the obvious places, to find that it seemed that they where actually true to the text rather than incerting their theological biasness into the text.

The NIV on other hand even 84' was very bad about inserting their theological biasness, instead of staying true to the text, Finney would have strongly spoke out against it, because of its theological biasness , I am sure of that.

Can someone who has access to a gender-neutral NIV give an example of a change in the text that makes a real difference?

Or is it mostly things like substituting "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" (like Greg said) or changing pronouns? Everyone knows, even in older translations, that often when the verse reads "man" or "he" that it may include females. For example, I Tim 4:10: "For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all **men**, especially of those who believe."

Before I get over-excited about this issue I would like to see some examples of where the gender neutral version truly "endorses" the gay agenda, for example.

Brother Greg:

"I have almost considered it a task worthy doing to make a new translation of the NT from the Textus Receptus and KJV text."

Are you aware of the Jubilee Bible? I think you would find this very interesting!

Greg said, "I have almost considered it a task worthy doing to make a new translation of the NT from the Textus Receptus and KJV text."

It's called the New KJV. :)

bear wrote:
_____
"Thus the Psalm that reads**What is man that you think of him** becomes **What are human beings you think of them**. Thus something is dreadfully lost in gender neutrality. The beauty of language and the unique creation of man."
------------

Is this Psalm talking about men only, or about humans in general? Obviously humans in general. Therefore I see nothing wrong with a translation that simply says what the text actually means. I agree that the beauty of the language may be lost, but remember the original language was not English anyways. I don't see anything being "dreadfully lost" in the newer version because it means exactly the same thing. If the passage was changed to read "Don't you think humans are awesome, God?" then something would be dreadfully lost.

I am curious about how this verse reads in the gender neutral NIV:

Gen. 1:27: "So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

Can someone tell me how this in rendered in this new NIV?

And how about this passage:

Mt: 19:4-6: "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

How these 2 passages are rendered will help me decide whether there is some "gay marriage" agenda in this newer translation.

From a 'brother' in Christ. (Sister for you gender specific people). I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion but she does have some great points. To give proper credit: http://www.girlsgonewise.com/10-reasons-why-the-new-niv-is-bad-for-women/

Disclaimer: I know nothing of this sister or her website so please do not search her website for some way to marginalize what she is saying (or slander her). Just pay attention to these points that she brings up.

The new gender-inclusive NIV was published earlier this year. It contains thousands of changes to the Bible’s male-gendered language. Having a gender-inclusive Bible appears to be the latest trend amongst cutting-edge, cappuccino-slurping Christian hipsters. Don’t get me wrong. I like to be hip. And I enjoy cappuccino as much as the next person. But my biggest beef with gender-inclusive Bibles is that they lack doctrinal precision. If you mess with the words, you mess with the meaning. Respected Bible scholars have explained why inclusive translations such as the New International Version (NIV), New Revised Standard (NRSV), and Common English Bible (CEB) are deeply flawed. If you haven’t yet considered their arguments, you might want to check out these Gender Neutral Bible Articles.

Notwithstanding the doctrinal imprecision and blatant politically-correct translating agenda, there are additional reasons why I dislike gender inclusive Bibles. Undoubtedly the publishers had good intentions, and genuinely wanted to help women, but in my mind, a gender-inclusive Bible is BAD for women. Really, really bad for women! I react to people reading from the new, gender-inclusive NIV the way I react to nails scratching down a chalk board. Here are ten reasons why:

1. It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

Gender has a profound, cosmic meaning. God created manhood, womanhood, marriage and sex to put the love story of Christ and the Church on display. When we mess with the Bible’s gender language, we obscure gender’s symbolism. We make truths about God and the gospel more difficult to understand

2. It exalts gender above that to which it points:

Changing the Bible’s gender language implies that the Bible’s gender language is about us. It’s not. The Bible is ultimately not about male and female—it’s about Jesus, the Son of Man and Son of God. The Bible does not use predominantly male gendered language to exalt men; it uses it to exalt THE Man who paid the ultimate price to redeem His Bride.

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

Blurring the Bible’s gender language contributes to the blurring of gender distinctions. It diminishes and devalues the unique role and beauty of womanhood.

4. It is less inclusive of women:

Gender inclusive Bibles cast women as “other” rather than part of the collective whole. God collectively named male and female “man” (Hebrew: ‘adam. See Gen. 5:2) to indicate that male and female would share a common condition for which He would provide a common answer. Because both male and female are ‘adam, both are equally represented by the first man, Adam. Both are fallen and in need of a Savior. The good news of the gospel is that both are also equally represented by the Second Man—the Last Adam—Jesus Christ. When God named male and female ‘adam, he had the Last Adam in mind. So when, in order to appease modern sensibilities, we change “man” to something we think is more inclusive,” we diminish the theological meaning and exclude woman. If woman is not specifically identified as “man” then how can she be represented by the first man, Adam? What’s more, how can she be represented by the Second Man, the Last Adam, Jesus Christ? Gender inclusive Bibles are supposed to be more inclusive of women, but pardoxically, the language theologically does the exact opposite. It excludes women from the collective whole.

5. It demeans women:

Gender inclusive Bibles imply that women are too stupid to figure out that in the Bible, the words “man” and “brothers” are inclusive terms. The male translators have to fix the words for us, since we’re not theologically astute enough or bright enough to get it on our own. Quite frankly, I feel like gender-inclusive Bibles insult a woman’s intelligence.

6. It patronizes women:

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don’t get hurt. Boo hoo. Women are so easily offended. Sorry, . . . but changing the words of the Bible because you think some women might be offended by its language is downright patronizing.

7. It calls God’s attitude toward women into question:

Making changes to gender language is based on the premise that God ought to have given gals and guys equal air time. Trying to minimize the discrepancy suggests that God didn’t care enough about women to take our feelings into account. The natural conclusion is that He obviously loves his boys more than He loves his girls. The conclusion is wrong. And the premise is wrong.

8. It calls God’s wisdom into question:

Poor God. His bad. He needs our help. He wasn’t smart enough to get the words right. He obviously isn’t as enlightened as people living in the new millennium. We have to step in and update His image, to make the Bible more palatable to woman’s modern sensibilities.

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book. And since we’re audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for humans, it won’t be long till we’re audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for God. Translators will undoubtedly feel the need to update God’s names so that HE becomes more gender inclusive. Terms like “Mother-Father God,” “Jesus, child of woman and man,” “Great Source of Being in the Sky” and our “God-Goddess” communicate the concept of a gender-inclusive deity much better than the male-gendered language of the Bible. Don’t be naive. I’ve studied feminist theology long enough to know that naming self leads to naming the world leads to naming god. It’s audacious indeed!

10. It leads women away from truth:

I care about women. Deeply. I long to see them experience healing and wholeness in Christ Jesus. I do them a disservice when I apologize for the Bible, fail to embrace its unvarnished beauty and power, and shrink back from sharing the Words that are perceived by some as foolishness and a stumbling block, yet are actually the power and wisdom of God for righteousness and sanctification and redemption. I fail women when I try to make God or His Word more palatable. I empty the cross of its power (1 Cor. 1:17-30).

Gender and gender language is important. It touches on the essence of a woman’s identity, the essence of the character of God, and on the essence of the gospel. We get things so very wrong when we think we can improve on the Bible’s teaching on gender or the gender language it uses. The big picture informs us that from the very beginning, God’s plan for gender has very little to do with us and very much to do with Him. And we need to trust that even if we don’t fully understand them, the words, images and means He has chosen to display His glory are not only right, they are also good. Very good! And also very good for women!

A Battle Worth Fighting

I understand that language changes over time, and that translation is not always an easy task. But I am saddened that Christians seem so eager to jump on the cultural bandwagon to update God’s Holy Book with inclusive language. I don’t think they realize what is at stake. I have had students struggle with understanding concepts about God because their native language did not lend itself to translating/expressing the gendered concepts that exist in the original languages of the Bible. We will lose something very critical and essential if we lose the linguistic concepts afforded us by the gendered nature of English. Retaining gender distinctiveness in our language is a battle worth fighting. There is a great deal at stake.

So ladies, please don’t jump on the gender-inclusive Bible bandwagon. Be hip. Be courageous. Be politically incorrect. Insist on a Bible that acurately translates gender language– like the ESV, Holman Christian Standard, or New America Standard. Because in the end, inclusive language, and inclusive language Bibles, are bad for women.

She obviously doesnt like the gender neutral translation (not sure i do either) and that is fine-- she doesn't have to read it.

I think her points may be important to her but perhaps straining at gnats. She may also be attributing false intentions on the translators-- I seriously doubt, for example, that they were intending to be patronizing or demeaning to women.

I am still curious if there is any wording in this new NIV that actually makes a substantive change to the meaning of the text. (changing a text from "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" IS NOT a substantive change in my opinion, because "brothers" in certain contexts actually means "brothers and sisters."

I am still curious about Gen 1 and Mt 19.

That is true. They probably did not think it was demeaning to women when they wrote it. However, it may be demeaning to spiritual women.

It might also be a possibility that the new gender neutral Bible will not appeal to men, either.

Consider:

In the famous proverb, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” becomes “…so one person sharpens another” in the new NIV.

Maybe there will be lawsuits against "men's ministries", now.

We no longer have "David's mighty men", but rather "David's mighty warriors".

OR:

1 Kings 9:5 God promises Solomon: “You shall never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.” The new NIV changes “man” to “successor." However, the Hebrew word means “man,” not “successor.”

In Luke 17:3 Jesus says, “If your brother sins, rebuke him.” This is changed to “If your brother or sister sins…"

So, even though the Greek says brother, "adelphos", we are now seeing translations that are translating according to what "WAS MEANT" and not what was said.

Contemporary people have been barraged with politically correct speech for decades now and that is why they are so accepting of a "politically correct" Bible. I wonder what the next evolution of the Bible will be?

The new NIV is more of a revision of the TNIV. For those people that thought the TNIV was dead, they will be surprised to find out that 31.3% of the new NIV is identical in wording to the TNIV text against the 1984 NIV, while only a paltry 0.6% of verses agree with the 1984 NIV against the TNIV. In all, almost 92% of the new NIV is identical to the TNIV, so those who thought the TNIV was dead are in for a surprise.

TMK, here is a wonderful resource for you that proves the TNIV has just taken another form.
http://www.slowley.com/niv2011_comparison/

And, I think you will especially like this one. Much more detailed and gives you some "problem" verses to look at.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf

Pilgrim

by amrkelly on 2013/6/4 12:23:53

1984 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

2011 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (same as TNIV, but with modified footnotes)

Evangelical feminists will love this translation because in one stroke it removes the Bible‘s main barrier to women pastors and elders. As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV, the debate over women‘s roles in that church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, ―I‘m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.‖ Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to ―assume authority.‖

http://www.bible-researcher.com/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf

This argument was being used in the 1980's long before these spurious translations appeared. When men are determined to do something the scriptures won't stop them no matter what is written.

Very true, amrkelly. It looks to be the TNIV, repackaged.

It must be painfully obvious by now that "new" translations will continue to proliferate.

by bearmaster on 2013/6/4 15:22:34

Rather than the Bible impacting society the reverse is happening. Since language is moving to refect gender neutrality on a wider scake. This trend is making it's way into the more hip translations of scripture to be relevant. Where does one draw the line?

The 10 objections raised by the sister that Pilgrim posted are worthy of consideration. The point that resonated with me was if men are being audacious enough to tamper with the gender language of the Bible. Will the NIV2020 tamper with the masculine name of God. One wonders????

My thoughts.

Bearmaster.

Exactly! That is what I was thinking. Where is this all going? What will Jesus "look like" with the NIV2020. Will the 2nd person of the trinity be a woman or maybe a trans-gender?

Hi Greg,

thankyou for the response,
I never thought to look at the eternal security passages.

Yes, regardless of our theology we need to be true to the text, if for no other reason than to be presented honest from them whom are without, such as the JW's. and to feel honest among ourselves.

Greg wrote ///NIV does not take away any crucial differences between men and women in the Scripture as I have read as it did in TNIV///

Shouldn't we be concerned with the reality that the same overseer's of the TNIV where basically the same overseer's as that of the New NIV.

To me it would appear that their could be (I personaly believe their is) an agenda, that is pushing the limits as far as the Christian culture will allow for the time being.

It seems to me that the TNIV revealed this.

The Sad reality is that in all of this bible politics the Christian culture is becoming trained to not rest on the truths and hope found in Scripture.

////So saints know I do love the KJV and do refer to it and still feel it is better in many ways. I have almost considered it a task worthy doing to make a new translation of the NT from the Textus Receptus and KJV text. And just improve the english and some terms. One would not even need to be a greek expert to simply update some of the archaic terms and fix some of the errors in the KJV text.////

We do have the NKJV and Raycomforts kjv Evidence Bible and etc.,

But what all modern versions including these have stopped doing was what the KJV attempted to do with the use of italics,
Italicizing the words that stray away from the original language or improving the accuracy of the italics, mabe a good idea to consider if desiring to take on such a task.

"The real controversy is whether to water down or
omit details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive"

The deepest difference over gender-neutral translations is not really about whether people will be able to understand the Bible today. Rather, it is about whether translators should exclude details that seem offensive in the contemporary culture.

After all, the main words in dispute are only five: ―father,‖ ―son,‖ ―brother,‖ ―man,‖ and ―he/him/his.‖

What English-speaking person today cannot understand these words? The ultimate reason for deleting these words thousands of times is not that people cannot understand them, for they are extraordinarily simple and common words.

The ultimate reason is that the translators decided it was objectionable today to translate literally the Bible‘s uses of an individual male example to teach a general truth in thousands of passages.

For example, it is not that English readers today – even the younger generation of adults age 18 to 34 – cannot understand, ―Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked‖ (Psalm 1:1). It is that gender-neutral Bible translators find it objectionable that the Bible used an individual male example to teach a general truth, so they changed the meaning to "Blessed is the one … ". It is not that readers today cannot understand the words, ―If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him‖ (Luke 17:3). Nor would even young adults today have any difficulty in realizing that the verse also applies to a sister who sins, any more than they would have difficulty understanding that ―you shall not covet your neighbor‘s wife‖ (Exodus 20:17) also applies to not coveting your neighbor‘s husband!

For centuries people have easily understood that when the Bible uses a specific example of an individual man or woman to teach a general principle, the principle also applies to people of the opposite sex. The parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8) teaches both men and women about persistence in prayer. The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) also applies to prodigal daughters.23 We do not have to change the words of the Bible for such general applications to be understood. The Bible frequently teaches by using a concrete, specific examples, not merely by using vague principles or groups.

The 2011 NIV does not change these parables to anything gender-neutral.

So the controversy is not really about whether people today can understand that "If your brother sins, rebuke him" also applies to a sister who sins. Rather, the problem is that the 2011 NIV translators found it objectionable that Jesus used an individual example of a male human being ("If your brother sins...") to teach a general truth. Therefore the 2011 NIV changed Jesus' words to "If your brother or sister sins against you …," adding "or sister" (which are words that Jesus did not say), and in doing so they failed to translate Jesus‘ words accurately.

Moral of the story...Feel free to correct Jesus.

Full text:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf