NIV Updated
this is how they should have marketed the tniv. mostly the same as the niv.
(actually in my quick check it looks the same as the tniv)
(actually in my quick check it looks the same as the tniv)
I would be just as happy if this continual re-issuing of the NIV served to marginalize its impact among Bible versions. I was surprised to see just last week that it is still the biggest seller.
I hope that Nelson never does this to the NKJV — that would be a huge mistake.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out — does the new NIV replace the old one, as the NASB95 basically did to the old NASB, or do we now have 4 different NIV’s (NIrV, TNIV, NIV84, NIV10)?? What about the publishers and denominations that have switched to the NIV??
I hope that Nelson never does this to the NKJV — that would be a huge mistake.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out — does the new NIV replace the old one, as the NASB95 basically did to the old NASB, or do we now have 4 different NIV’s (NIrV, TNIV, NIV84, NIV10)?? What about the publishers and denominations that have switched to the NIV??
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] I would be just as happy if this continual re-issuing of the NIV served to marginalize its impact among Bible versions. I was surprised to see just last week that it is still the biggest seller.
I hope that Nelson never does this to the NKJV — that would be a huge mistake.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out — does the new NIV replace the old one, as the NASB95 basically did to the old NASB, or do we now have 4 different NIV’s (NIrV, TNIV, NIV84, NIV10)?? What about the publishers and denominations that have switched to the NIV??
Is the NIV Nelson’s version of Windows? :p Where’s the Macintosh of Bibles?
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott] Very interesting…the concept of “all genders” is very common
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gender+include+all+genders%22
biblica also has a nice statement about their rationale related to inclusive language:
http://www.biblica.com/niv/accuracy/#Language] What Was Decided About Inclusive Language?
Common doesn’t mean wise or acceptable. As Tim Bayly asks, why “all” and not “both,” especially in a Christian/Biblical context?
The statement you provide is interesting, both in what it says and what it avoids saying.
The statement you provide is interesting, both in what it says and what it avoids saying.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
because bylaws follow norms for contract law. it looks like they just grabbed some boilerplate that had a lot of normal legal english. this isn’t their translational philosophy.
Haigh, Rupert (2004). Legal English. p. 194
http://books.google.com/books?id=GVPhutbJEzUC&pg=PA194
Haigh, Rupert (2004). Legal English. p. 194
http://books.google.com/books?id=GVPhutbJEzUC&pg=PA194
Reference to any gender includes all genders: this phrase is the ultimate evidence of lawyers’ tendency to be cautions. It forsees the possibility of hermaphrodite involvement in the contract.
Dear Chris,
>>bylaws follow forms…
Well of course they do. The “any gender includes all genders” comment is obvious legal boilerplate.
Which means nothing.
The real question is how Christians can employ such language and confess the Faith? If not in the Bylaws of our Bible non-profits, precisely where do words matter? Or better, precisely where do our words give us away?
Truth is, even the use of the word ‘gender’ rather than ‘sex’ in the registration process for commenting on Sharper Iron says something. ‘Sex’ is about body parts and bifurcation whereas ‘gender’ is about social constructs and a continuum.
But hey, there I go nitpicking again. Stupid me.
Those who think the only words that have meaning are those in the Bible, the dictionary, and those we choose carefully saying exactly what we intend to say don’t occupy the same world I do.
Love,
>>bylaws follow forms…
Well of course they do. The “any gender includes all genders” comment is obvious legal boilerplate.
Which means nothing.
The real question is how Christians can employ such language and confess the Faith? If not in the Bylaws of our Bible non-profits, precisely where do words matter? Or better, precisely where do our words give us away?
Truth is, even the use of the word ‘gender’ rather than ‘sex’ in the registration process for commenting on Sharper Iron says something. ‘Sex’ is about body parts and bifurcation whereas ‘gender’ is about social constructs and a continuum.
But hey, there I go nitpicking again. Stupid me.
Those who think the only words that have meaning are those in the Bible, the dictionary, and those we choose carefully saying exactly what we intend to say don’t occupy the same world I do.
Love,
Tim Bayly
[Tim Bayly] ‘Sex’ is about body parts and bifurcation whereas ‘gender’ is about social constructs and a continuum.how old is your dictionary? normal usage of the words gender and sex has shifted over the years and is even used differently in different fields.
>>how old is your dictionary? normal usage of the words gender and sex has shifted over the years and is even used differently in different fields.
Yes, yes; I forgot. Usage has changed. How could I be so dumb? I must update my dictionary. Out with Scripture’s usage of ‘adam’ and ‘man’; in with the world’s usage of ‘person’ and ‘human.’ Out with the ancient usage of Scripture where ‘brother’ and ‘brother’s’ is written; in with the world’s modern usage of ‘Christian friends’ and ‘Christian siblings.’ Out with ‘Jews,’ in with ‘they’ and ‘Jewish leaders.’
Usage has changed.
Out with ‘sex’ and in with “all genders.”
It’s perfectly obvious. I must be getting old and lazy.
Love,
Yes, yes; I forgot. Usage has changed. How could I be so dumb? I must update my dictionary. Out with Scripture’s usage of ‘adam’ and ‘man’; in with the world’s usage of ‘person’ and ‘human.’ Out with the ancient usage of Scripture where ‘brother’ and ‘brother’s’ is written; in with the world’s modern usage of ‘Christian friends’ and ‘Christian siblings.’ Out with ‘Jews,’ in with ‘they’ and ‘Jewish leaders.’
Usage has changed.
Out with ‘sex’ and in with “all genders.”
It’s perfectly obvious. I must be getting old and lazy.
Love,
Tim Bayly
i even quoted a legal english book above that clearly shows that “all genders” in the legal context is covering all physiologies. the legal phrase is clearly not talking about gender as a social construct when haigh gives hermaphrodite (i.e. intersex) to clarify what the phrase means that “both genders” would not.
in other contexts and fields, either “gender” or “sex” are preferred or neither is preferred when speaking of physiological differences.
it’s not fair to take your own idea of the range of meaning the words “gender” and “sex” should carry (ignoring context, contemporary usage and language reference books), and slam the niv for misrepresenting God’s word because you think they endorse the concept of gender as a social construct.
why should biblica’s bylaws not be able to function for a person God made ambiguous?
in other contexts and fields, either “gender” or “sex” are preferred or neither is preferred when speaking of physiological differences.
it’s not fair to take your own idea of the range of meaning the words “gender” and “sex” should carry (ignoring context, contemporary usage and language reference books), and slam the niv for misrepresenting God’s word because you think they endorse the concept of gender as a social construct.
why should biblica’s bylaws not be able to function for a person God made ambiguous?
Dear Chris,
Two things: first, laws and bylaws should never be written for exceptions. To do so is a part of the error Chesterton was observing when he warned against the modern morbid habit of sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal. Laws written for hermaphrodites or souls twisted into claiming to be transsexual are destructive anywhere, and all the more so within the Body of Christ.
Second, I’ve never said the CBT holds that gender is a social construct. Rather, I’ve said ‘gender’ communicates that sexual identify is a social construct whereas the word ‘sex’ opposes this, pointing instead to body parts and bifurcation. And I pointed out how Sharper Iron itself asks us for our “gender” instead of our “sex.”
But really, the main problem is that Christian men today can’t seem to get it in their heads that, not only the Word of God, but also the words of God are inspired, and that the use of those precise words is a critical part of guarding the good deposit and leading men to Christ.
Love,
Two things: first, laws and bylaws should never be written for exceptions. To do so is a part of the error Chesterton was observing when he warned against the modern morbid habit of sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal. Laws written for hermaphrodites or souls twisted into claiming to be transsexual are destructive anywhere, and all the more so within the Body of Christ.
Second, I’ve never said the CBT holds that gender is a social construct. Rather, I’ve said ‘gender’ communicates that sexual identify is a social construct whereas the word ‘sex’ opposes this, pointing instead to body parts and bifurcation. And I pointed out how Sharper Iron itself asks us for our “gender” instead of our “sex.”
But really, the main problem is that Christian men today can’t seem to get it in their heads that, not only the Word of God, but also the words of God are inspired, and that the use of those precise words is a critical part of guarding the good deposit and leading men to Christ.
Love,
Tim Bayly
Discussion