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

Maybe it’s time for all of you users of NIV to switch to ESV? (It was better than old NIV anyway, but way better than new NIV!)

My next (and last) Bible is going to be an ESV (large print)

this report appears to only criticize the translation because it disagrees with the assumptions of cbmw instead of showing even-handedly with reliable sources why the translation/interpretation they are using is correct. for example, the comments on 1tim2:12 seem to forget that the kjv uses “usurp” which should leave the question open just as much. the arguments about junia neglect to mention historical considerations like that chrysostom praised her as a female apostle in his commentary on romans.

Does anyone seriously believe that the NIV needed updating — other than possibly for marketing and advertising purposes?
It will be interesting to see what will happen with the denominational publishing houses and other ministries that have invested tremendous resources into going with the NIV — only to now be tied to an obsolete version that is now linked to this question over gender neutrality.
Is the ESV the answer? Perhaps for the moment, until it is likewise updated or until the NEXT new soon-to-be-greatest-ever version comes along — probably within five to 10 years.
My solution is simple: NKJV ‘82 only 8-)

Chris, the point of the CBMW is changes between the old NIV and the 2011 NIV, so weaknesses in other translations, such as KJVs “usurp” are not really relevant.

Further, the report doesn’t stand alone. The CBMW has gone to great lengths in the past to explain the gender issues involved in translation and why gender-specific and gender-nuanced are more faithful to the Greek than other choices—and under what conditions. Probably most of their work on that topic occurred back when the TNIV was introduced.

In fact, two of the leaders (Poythress and Grudem) of the CBMW have written a book on the subject.
[amazon 0805424415 thumbnail]

The revising of the gender language of Scripture has serious implications for doctrine and practice in our churches.

I do think it is significant that the KJV has some of the alleged gender-neutral readings the NIV has. The point that CBMW raises against the change in 1 Cor. 14 could also be used to nail the KJV since it divides its verses like the NIV divides its paragraphs. The KJV has “Junia” being “of note among the apostles”. And as was pointed out above, the KJV uses “usurp authority” not “have authority” in 1 Tim. 2:12.

Now, no one can argue that the KJV was trying to be gender neutral, but couldn’t the NIV be trying to be true to the text in Rom. 16 and 1 Cor. 14, without having a gender bias? What’s significant is that the NIV moved away from the TNIV in significant places.

The ESV is more gender neutral than many claim. It really is true that our language uses plural pronouns today often. If you read the CBMW report sometimes it seems to be just egregiously picky, as in saying the change in Prov. 27:17 [from “one man sharpens another” to “one person sharpens another”] would be detrimental to men’s groups who make the verse a banner verse for their men’s ministry. Isn’t that a bit much, now?

The NIV rationale in their report on the translation update gives their reasons for making changes. You might not like all of them, but they are consistent, and they try not to take a side in the egalitarian/complementarian debate.

The NIV went out of its way to eliminate the TNIV and modify its translation to be less gender neutral. This was a positive response to serious problems, I believe. But the reaction from the CBMW to me makes it all for nothing. They hardly acknowledge any changes or improvements and continue to poo-poo the translation.

I was impressed by the committee’s report and their changes in other avenues besides gender neutrality. I applaud their changes even if they haven’t come all the way I’d like in some places.

If you read the CBMW report sometimes it seems to be just egregiously picky, as in saying the change in Prov. 27:17 [from “one man sharpens another” to “one person sharpens another”] would be detrimental to men’s groups who make the verse a banner verse for their men’s ministry. Isn’t that a bit much, now?

Well, it’s certainly not about helping men’s groups.
The question is whether the Hebrew there accurately renders to “one person” or “one man.”

if you haven’t seen the niv translation committee’s rationale, it explains a lot and provides some balance to the cbmw statements.

http://www.thenivbible.com/assets/documents/uploads/TranslationNotes102…] Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation
(especially pages 4–7 are relevant to this discussion)

Anyone interested in this topic should read D. A. Carson’s book, The inclusive-language debate : a plea for realism.

[Joe Whalen] Anyone interested in this topic should read D. A. Carson’s book, The inclusive-language debate : a plea for realism.

Thanks. Haven’t got that one.

[Bob Hayton] I do think it is significant that the KJV has some of the alleged gender-neutral readings the NIV has. The point that CBMW raises against the change in 1 Cor. 14 could also be used to nail the KJV since it divides its verses like the NIV divides its paragraphs. The KJV has “Junia” being “of note among the apostles”. And as was pointed out above, the KJV uses “usurp authority” not “have authority” in 1 Tim. 2:12.

Now, no one can argue that the KJV was trying to be gender neutral, but couldn’t the NIV be trying to be true to the text in Rom. 16 and 1 Cor. 14, without having a gender bias? What’s significant is that the NIV moved away from the TNIV in significant places.

The ESV is more gender neutral than many claim. It really is true that our language uses plural pronouns today often. If you read the CBMW report sometimes it seems to be just egregiously picky, as in saying the change in Prov. 27:17 [from “one man sharpens another” to “one person sharpens another”] would be detrimental to men’s groups who make the verse a banner verse for their men’s ministry. Isn’t that a bit much, now?

The NIV rationale in their report on the translation update gives their reasons for making changes. You might not like all of them, but they are consistent, and they try not to take a side in the egalitarian/complementarian debate.

The NIV went out of its way to eliminate the TNIV and modify its translation to be less gender neutral. This was a positive response to serious problems, I believe. But the reaction from the CBMW to me makes it all for nothing. They hardly acknowledge any changes or improvements and continue to poo-poo the translation.

I was impressed by the committee’s report and their changes in other avenues besides gender neutrality. I applaud their changes even if they haven’t come all the way I’d like in some places.

Bob, I read the CBMW report much differently. How can you say “they hardly acknowledge any changes or improvements” when they begin their report by doing that very thing and explicitly affirm the CBT for improvements made from the TNIV (even if they go on to say they believe the CBT didn’t go far enough)?

Also, the CBMW report pointed out that the CBT was not consistent in its translation choices, sometimes making translation choices they specifically said they would avoid.

And I certainly wouldn’t say they “eliminated” the TNIV. They may have stepped back from the TNIV, but as the report notes, the NIV update keeps about 75% of the gender-neutral changes of the TNIV compared to the old NIV.

I guess it was the tone or spirit of the report. After CBT explains that it will use plural pronouns, the report lists all the times it does. Things like that. Yes CBT differes from CBMW, I get that. But the fact that the KJB has some of the same readings is interesting at the very least. CBT wasn’t completely consistent but neither are many other translations. The ESV has a lot of gender neutral elements in it, but CBMW doesn’t seem to mind. I guess I’m just tired of the fighting in this front. I do appreciate what CBMW stands for. I just think they could have been more appreciative of the NIV 2011 and consequent shelving of the TNIV.