The TNIV and Other Gender-Inclusive Bibles:
Translations or Transformations?
Calvary Chapel Chelmsford's Stance
What do we mean by "Translations or Transformations?" Christianity is not a nebulous faith. It has very definite content in the form of immutable doctrines, which distinguish it from all other world religions.
The purpose of Bible translation is to convey these doctrines, unaltered, from one generation of Christians to the next. A good translator strives to make the original, authoritative message more intelligible to his audience. His priority is always the authenticity of the message. As Millard Erickson states in
Christian Theology, ". . . translators attempt to say what the Bible would say if it were being written to us in our present situation. . . The message must challenge the contemporary mind set, not simply accommodate it. There is a built-in dimension of the message that will always be offensive to the natural man." 1
Transformers, on the other hand, believe that man and the world have changed since Biblical times. In essence, they confuse things external to man (e.g., advances in technology and government) with those that are internal to man (e.g., the heart, human nature corrupted by sin), and think that because the externals have changed, so, too, have the internals.
Based on this premise, they conclude that beliefs and doctrines must be altered to represent modern concepts. "Relevance" is what is to be sought after; biblical authority is passe. To transformers, contemporary man is the measure of truth and the Scriptural message must conform to man, not man to the message.
The release of Today's New International Version
In February 2005, Zondervan Publishers released the TNIV (Today's New International Version) under the auspices of the International Bible Society, which holds the copyrights to the NIV. The publication of the TNIV has been greeted by a storm of controversy and protest among evangelicals.
The TNIV is not the first of the so-called "gender-inclusive" Bibles, nor has it gone as far with inclusivity as have other versions. Both the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV), published under the auspices of the National Council of Churches (NCCC) and the American Bible Society (ABS) respectively, have far exceeded the TNIV in silencing biblical masculinity. So why have evangelicals singled out the TNIV for criticism?
To date, gender-inclusive versions of the Bible have either been used predominantly by liberal denominations, which hold a "low view" of Scripture, or are Bibles, like the CEV, that comprise such an insignifcant portion of the market (CEV = 1/2%) 2 that they go unnoticed.
Liberals do not acknowledge the Bible as the infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God as evangelicals do.
Evangelicals, however, tend to think of the NIV as "our Bible," since it was initiated by the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals.3 As such, they have high expectations for the way in which any revision of the NIV is translated.
Evangelical Protestants take to heart the Reformation's motto of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). They depend on their Bibles as the sole source for both doctrine and practice, that is, for what they believe and how they live their lives. Historically, Protestants have refused to be led by the authority of any hierarchy, or tradition handed down from generation to generation, or by canon laws legislated by ecumenical councils. They judge such things, indeed everything, by one standard and one standard alone - the Holy Bible. For these reasons, they insist that translations be as faithful to the meaning of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
The NIV (1978) accounts for about one-third 4 (i.e., 32%) of the Bibles sold in the English-speaking world. It is followed by the King James Version (1611) at about 23%5, and the New King James Version (1982) at about 9%.6
Its sales reflect the respect Christians have for the NIV. Its popularity has been due to its being a very readable and relatively accurate translation of the original texts - "relatively accurate" because as a functional-equivalent translation, the NIV attempts to clarify difficult passages for the sake of understanding and in so doing eliminates other possible meanings inherent in the original texts.
There was no popular demand for the NIV's revision. That decision was made by the CBT (i.e., the NIV "Committee on Bible Translation") and the IBS. The CBT cites the reasons for its revision in the preface to the TNIV, " . . . to bring the text of the NIV abreast of contemporary biblical scholarship and of shifts in English idiom and usage." It goes on to note that, "Among the more programmatic (italics added) changes in the TNIV are . . . the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns." 7
The word "programmatic", as defined by Webster's Dictionary, means: "of, having, advocating, resembling or following a plan, policy or program." In other words, the TNIV translators followed an "agenda" requiring gender-neutrality.
In 1996, prior to the publication of the TNIV, its sister version, the "New International Version Inclusive-Language Edition," (NIVI) was introduced to the British market. To make it crystal clear that inclusive language was what differentiated the NIVI from the NIV, the word"inclusive" was added to its title. The intended emphasis of this addition becomes even more clear when one considers that even radically inclusive translations chose not to differentiate themselves by the use of such and explicit and prejudicial term in their titles.
Neither did the NIVI preface couch its inclusive agenda in euphemisms. The preface boldly states, ". . . it is often appropriate to mute the patriarchal ism of the culture of the biblical writers though gender-inclusive language."8
But, considering we are speaking of the word of God here, do translators have the authority to mute any nuance of its meaning? Did God make a mistake in allowing so many male nouns and pronouns to be used in His Word? Did He choose the wrong cultural milieu, or mistakenly select male chauvinists as His vessels of revelation? Given His omniscience and omnipotence, we think not.
Or could it be that the authors' intended meanings have been lost in the translation to English, or could it be that changes in English usage justify gender-inclusive language of the sort used in the TNIV? Such arguments are indeed used to justify meddling with the male overtones of Scripture.
Gender-Inclusive vs. Gender-Accurate
Before we can answer the latter questions, we must digress a moment to introduce some pertinent information. Since the debate hinges on the term "inclusive language," we must pause to consider its meaning.
Advocates of such language like to draw a line of separation between the inclusive-language versions of the Bible, and the non-inclusive language versions. This is a totally artificial distinction, since all English Bibles, since that of Tyndale (1526), have used appropriate gender-inclusive language. By appropriate, we mean where the context, grammar and semantics of the original text allow for its use.
"Appropriate" is synonymous with another oft heard term, that is, "gender-accurate" translation. Many gender-inclusive versions insinuate that they are gender-accurate, but in fact, they are not (for reasons to be introduced later). The most accurate term to describe the TNIV, NIVI, NRSV, CEV, GW, GNB, NLB, NCV, NIrV (1995) and others of their kind is "gender-neutral." This term implies that these translations have as an agenda the muting of masculinity within God's word regardless of whether or not such alterations best represent the meaning of the original texts.
For example, the NRSV has eliminated all of the 106 occurrences9 of "son of man," found in the RSV OT. This was done even at the expense of eliminating prophetic links to Christ in the NT, as in Daniel 7:13, cited by Christ in Matthew 26:64, as referring to Himself.
The TNIV does the same thing in removing "son of man" from both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6. In both verses, "son of man" is changed to read "human beings." Yet the Greek in Hebrews 2:6 (huios anthropou) is clearly "son of man." The LXX, the Greek OT, uses these same words in Psalm 8:4. The Masoretic (Hebrew) text of Psalm 8:4 uses forms of "adam ben," in English, ""son of man." Meaning is lost, prophetic links are broken, and the semantics of the original texts violated. Furthermore, the singular reference "son of man" is pluralized in "human beings," ruining the personal, one to one nuance of both renderings. There are hundreds of such cases in TNIV.
Formal-equivalent vs. functional-equivalent translations
Another distinction often made in the gender-inclusive debate is that between "formal-equivalent" and "functional-equivalent" translations. Other synonyms for these two translation philosophies are also used, such as "literal" translation versus "dynamic" or "idiomatic" translation.
Formal equivalents are supposed to translate "word-for-word," while functional-equivalents endeavor to translate "thought-for-thought." The distinction is one of degree, for there are no entirely literal translations, nor are there any totally dynamic translations. Each version falls somewhere on a spectrum, with say, the King James Version being near the literal/formal end of the spectrum, and the New Living Translation, which is highly paraphrastic, at the other extreme (see the graphic comparison later in this text).
Many proponents of inclusive-language favor functional-equivalents, with an important exception being the NSRV, which is classed among formal-equivalents, but has gone so far to engender inclusivity that the translators had to abandon semantic fidelity to the original languages.
The mandate written by the translators of the NRSV was written by the "Division of Education & Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ." This same body is responsible for publishing, "An Inclusive Language Lectionary" (ILL, 1983). In this lectionary, which, like the NRSV, is based on the RSV, the full feminist agenda is realized. With respect to Christ, "The phrases 'Son of Man,' 'Son,' and 'Son of God,' are replaced, respectively with 'the Human One,' 'Child,' and 'Child of God." 10 And, "noting various feminine biblical images of God, the lectionary adds 'and Mother' in places where God is referred to as 'Father."11
Even Bruce Metzger, professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, well known proponent of ecumenicalism, prolific author, and chairman to the Translation Committee for the NSRV had to object. Metzger wrote, "The changes introduced in language relating to a Deity are tantamount to rewriting the Bible. As a Christian, and a scholar, I find this altogether unacceptable. It will divide the church, rather than work for ecumenical understanding." 12
It is informative to note that, as the person most responsible for the NSRV, Professor Metzger can recognize error when introduced in large proportions in the ILL, but fails to discern the same tendencies within the NRSV mandate issued to his translators by the same corrupt body.
As Christians, we need to always consider the source of any new translations. The NCCC, for instance, is part of the World Council of Churches, a liberal/leftist organization that has nurtured"Liberation Theology" and has financed it in the form of left-wing revolutions. It was the WCC that acted as an apologist for communist regimes, giving credence to the state appointed puppets who headed the official churches in these lands while concurrently denying the legitimacy, and often even the existence of, the real, underground church. WCC leaders even justified the persecution and arrest of real Christians by labeling them as illegal dissident factions being justly dealt with by the state.
Writing of the sellout of Christians imprisoned in the former Soviet Union, Reverend Richard Wurmbrand, who suffered fourteen years in the prisons of Communist Romania for his faith, said "Some Western Church leaders don't care about them. The names of the martyrs are not on their prayer lists. While they were being sentenced, the Russian Baptist and Orthodox official leaders who had denounced and betrayed them were received with great honor at New Delhi and Geneva (i.e., New Delhi and Geneva were the sites of WCC conferences), and at other conferences. There they assured everyone that in Russia there was full religious liberty. A leader of the world Council of Churches kissed the Bolshevik archbishop Nikodim when he gave this assurance. Then they banqueted together in the imposing name of the World Council of Churches, while the saints in prison ate cabbage with unwashed intestines, just as I had eaten in the name of Jesus Christ." 13
The National Council of Churches (NCCC) is the U.S. branch of the WCC. When God warns us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, should we as HIs children be trusting the NSRV knowing that it is the product of translators who agree with and follow the mandates of the NCCC?
It is worth noting that the NIV was the first major English Bible translation to use the functional format - but with no hint of gender-inclusiveness. The preface of the NIV (1978) announces that the translators ". . . have striven for more than a word-for-word translation." And, ". . . the New International Version should be idiomatic but not idiosyncratic. . ." They largely succeeded in their efforts towards a smoother reading Bible while concurrently maintaining a fairly accurate translation. It was not until 1986 that the first so-called gender-inclusive translation appeared in the New Century Version (NCV). So, prior to 1978, all major English translations were Formal-Equivalents, and prior to 1986, there were no gender-inclusive translations.
In his book on exegesis, Michael J. Gorman remarks, "For purposes of exegesis based on the English text of the Bible, a translation based on the theory of formal equivalence is best for two main reasons: 1) it allows more of the original ambiguities in the text to stand, and thus be noticed, investigated, and interpreted by the exegete; and 2) it generally renders a key word in the original biblical text with the same English word in translation. But functional-equivalent translations on the other hand, frequently (1) oversimplify complex or ambiguous texts, and (2) substitute contemporary idiom for ancient biblical idiom, often resulting in inconsistent or misleading translations of key items. No matter how skillful the translators, the effect of these strategies on the exegete is prejudiced: one interpretation is given preference over another. This may be fine for the casual reader but not for the serious exeget."
Gorman goes on to say that," The notion that one translation is preferable to another because it is 'easier to understand,' or 'seems to make more sense,' is a mistaken one." 14
The word "exegesis" simply means to lift the author's meaning out of a text. In this respect, every single Christian is called upon to be an exegete. We are to mature in our understanding of Scripture, outgrowing our need for milk and living on a diet of the meat of Scripture (Hebrews 5:11-14). As Gorman implies, we cannot lift the author's meaning out of an English translation of the Bible if the translators have "given preference" to one interpretation over others -- worse yet, if the translators have practiced eisegesis by changing the wording of the text to accommodate some special interest group (e.g., feminists).
Because the point just made is crucial and deserves emphasis, it is worth quoting Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress on this subject. They note that, "If a translator abandons the form of the original, any misunderstanding in his interpretation may have drastic effects on the translation. By contrast, if the translator preserves the form of the original when it conveys meaning in a satisfactory way, he may not always have to decide between different possible interpretations of the original, because the different possibilities that were there in the original (and that the original readers had to work at understanding) will be carried over into the translation as well." 15
In like fashion, in their preface (pp. vii-viii), the translators of the recent English Standard Version (2004) give their reasons for favoring the formal-equivalent technique in their translation: "In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a 'thought-for-thought' rather than 'word-for-word' translation philosophy, emphasizing 'dynamic equivalence' rather than the 'essential literal' meaning of the original word. A 'thought-for-thought' translation is, of necessity, more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and influences of contemporary culture (italics added)."
In his book, Strauss, a proponent of both gender inclusiveness and functional-equivalence, voices an opposing view. He writes, ". . . the primary goal of a good translation must always be meaning rather than form. . . Indeed, though we speak of a 'translation debate' between two methodologies, from the perspective of linguists and international Bible translators, the debate was over long ago. The technical writings and research emerging from major international translation organizations like Wycliffe Bible translators and the United Bible Society view it as given that dynamic or functional equivalence is the only legitimate method of true translation. Precise formal equivalence is little more than imitation of a source language's form, not true translation into a receptor language. Evangelical scholar D.A. Carson noted in 1987 that 'as far as those who struggle with biblical translation are concerned, dynamic equivalence has won the day, and rightly so."16
In studying Strauss' book, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation& Gender Accuracy, it is readily apparent that Strauss is prone to hyperbole, to misrepresentation of opposing points of view, and to making unsubstantiated and erroneous statements of fact.
The "Evangelical scholar," D.A. Carson, quoted by Strauss, agrees with Strauss' views and authored his own book, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism, in support of the same causes.
Strauss' book was published in 1998. Since that time, at least two excellent formal-equivalent Bibles have been published - the New English translation (NET, 2003) and the English Standard Version (ESV, 2004). We guess the translators of these Bibles hadn't heard the debate was over and "dynamic equivalence has won the day." Quite the opposite, they realized the dangers inherent in functional-equivalence and chose to avoid them. The NET preface states, "There are two dangers to avoid in translation. First, a translation should not be so literal that it is not good English. Second, a translation should not be so loose that it becomes merely an interpretation or allows sectarian interests to overwhelm the resultant text. All translation is interpretation; it cannot be otherwise. But the issue is how much interpretation and how idiosyncratic an interpretation is." It is obvious that the "sectarian interests" alluded to include "gender-inclusive language," for the NET goes on to address this issue on the same page (p. xiii).
From 1526 to 1978, the English-speaking world was well served by literal translations from the original languages, and before 1526 by literal translations from the Latin Vulgate. Even today, people seem to have little problem understanding the King James version, even though its translators intentionally employed archaic English to elevate the Bible above other literature. 17
In 1611, English was much the same as that spoken today. It did not include words like thy, thee, thou, ye, goeth, and doeth, but these translators reached back to early modern and even Middle English for some of their wording. It is said that as much as 80% of the text of the KJV was taken directly from Tyndale's 1526 edition.
The King James Version remains the number two selling English version today. It remains popular among Evangelical and Fundamentalist readers who seem able to comprehend even its 13th and 14th century nouns, pronouns and verbs.
The purpose for stressing that the KJV is still understandable today, archaic language and all, is because the chief justification for the use of gender-neutral language in the NIVI and TNIV is "change in English usage," like the generic "he."
At one time, English had first, second and third (as well as dual) singular and plural masculine, feminine and neuter personal pronouns. But those days lie centuries in the past. Today, we have the following personal pronouns (in the nominative case):
| personal |
singular |
plural |
| 1st |
I |
We |
| 2nd |
You |
You |
| 3rd |
He, She, It |
They |
Notice that the 3rd person singular is the only case with gender-specific pronouns (he, she, it). All the other cases have only one generic choice. FOr instance, "I" can stand for either a male or female, and "we" can be a group of males, females or both combined. This isn't true of the 3rd person singular. It has three choices: one explicitly for males (he), one just for females (she) and one for neuter objects (it). So what English does when a situation arises that might involve either a male or female in the 3rd person singular is to use "he," "his" or "him" generically -- that is to stand for both genders.
For example, consider Proverbs 15:5 - "A fool despises his father's instruction." "His" is used instead of "he" because it is the possessive rather than the nominative case. But the point is that this proverb can be applied to either gender. From a grammatical standpoint, "her" would fit just as well - "A fool despises her father's instruction."
One way a gender-neutral Bible may handle Proverbs 15:5 is to add a noun, such as "person" and substitute a plural pronoun, "their" in place of the singular male pronoun "his." In this case, it would read "A foolish person despises their father's instruction."
In doing so, the proverb becomes plural "their father's" and a son is no longer in mind, but a "person." The genre (i.e., literary type) of a proverb is exemplified by a short, pithy moral teaching. By design, Proverbs don't say all that there is to say on a subject. Instead, they make a very specific moral point in a short, easy to memorize way.
Proverbs and other literary genres often use subtleties to give the reader a certain viewpoint or sense about what is being written. These subtleties are often referred to as "nuances." In meddling with nuances to rid texts of male overtones found in the originals, gender-neutral versions often sacrifice meaning. (See Level 3, below.)
In their book, Grudem and Poythress detail four levels of "linguistic complexity" 18 inherent in Bible translations. These are:
Level 1 -Naive Approach: Word-for-Word
This level of understanding is exercised by beginning students in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, who are unfamiliar with differences in languages and who translate using simplistic rules.
One such rule is that the Greek genitive case should be translated as if it were an English possessive case by using the preposition "of." For instance, Jesus, the "Son of God," would be in the genitive case and therefore, rendered in English using "of" as shown; that is, Jesus the Son belonging to God. It is this simplistic use of the genitive that Strauss insinuates describes translators of literal versions.19 While there are cases of this in some translations, like the KJV, it misrepresents literal translations as a body. The NT translators of formal-equivalent English versions are all Greek scholars who thoroughly understand the eight or more ways in which the genitive case can be translated into English. To infer they are naive is more indicative of Strauss' inability to raise genuine issues in defense of gender-neutral language than it is an indictment of these scholars.
Level 2 - Informed Approach: Using a Linguistic System
At this level, students have moved beyond simple "rules of thumb" and have acquired a genuine understanding of the original languages' grammar, syntax, lexicology, etc. "They learn standard theoretically informed distinctions between form and meaning, sense and reference, dynamic-equivalent and formal-equivalent translation."20 It is on this level that the advocates of gender-neutral language base most of their arguments.
For example, they argue from the stance of semantic range (i.e., lexical definition) and the differences in gender systems between the original biblical languages and English, that gender-neutral language is justified, at least in some cases.
Level 3 - The Discerning Approach: Using a Native Speakers' Intuitive Sense of Subtleties
At this level it is understood that grammatical rules and linguistic systems are not all encompassing. The subtleties and nuances of language communication cannot be resolved down to the level of rules and systems. The interplay of all the myriad of language variables can form infinite combinations which require the intuition of native speakers to rightly interpret and translate. "Translation does not take place by the mechanical application of a theoretical formula, but by discernment." 21 it is at this level that opponents of gender-neutral language take issue with its affect on the intended meanings of the biblical authors.
Level 4 - The Reflective Approach: Explicitly Analyzes Subtleties
This form of analysis is still in an early formative stage of development. Its objective is to formalize the intuitions encountered at Level 3, if possible.
Above, the use of the generic "he" was discussed. Also, it was mentioned that purveyors of gender-neutrality argue from a premise of "changes in English usage." In fact, we quoted from the TNIV that one of the objectives of the translators was ". . . to bring the text of the NIV abreast of contemporary biblical scholarship and of shifts in English idiom and usage." (italics added).
One very specific, and controversial example is English usage of "generic man." We will quote from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd edition, published by Barnes & Noble Publishing, Inc. in 2003, to explain the controversy: "Man 3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind . . ." Then, under usage, Webster's remarks, "The use of MAN to mean "human being," both alone and in compounds, such as MANKIND, has met with objections in recent years, and the use is declining. The objection is based on the idea that MAN is most commonly used as an exclusive, sex-marked noun meaning "male human being." Critics of the use of man as a generic maintain that it is sometimes ambiguous when the wider sense is intended (man has built magnificent civilizations in the desert), but more often flatly discriminatory in that it slights or ignores the membership of women in the human race. . . Although some editors and writers reject or disregard these objections to MAN as a generic, many now choose instead to use terms as human being(s), human race, humankind, people, or when called for by style and context, women and men, or men and women."
In his book, Strauss gets to the heart of the matter when he says, "The real issue is not whether gender-inclusive language is related to the women's movement (it certainly is), but whether such language accurately conveys the intention of the original author." 22
In many instances, the right translation is determined by the "semantic range" of the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew words used by the inspired authors of the Old and New Testaments. "Semantics" and "Lexicology" are the branches of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words. Lexicons (i.e., dictionaries) define every legitimate meaning a single word may have.
For example, if one were to look up "pipe" in Webster's Dictionary, they will find that it has ten or more different meanings: 1. a hollow cylinder; 2. a small, shrill whistle, etc., etc. All the possible meanings for a word together comprise its "semantic range." It is the same in the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic used in Scripture.
An NT Greek Lexicon will list all the possible meanings for any word used in the New Testament. Now the original languages, unlike English, have multiple words for "man" as well as for other male-marked words, such as "brothers" or "sons." Some of these forms have semantic ranges which include generic usages, that is, in which both sexes may be included (like our generic "he"), while the semantic ranges of other forms have no such inclusiveness and always refer to males only, and must be translated into English as such.
As for those male forms which include some generic usages among their various meanings, they cannot be routinely translated in a generic fashion. But, each occurrence must be considered on a case-by-case basis, the right translation being determined by which of its multiple meanings is indicated by context, literary genre, nuance, and other textual consideration.
The so-called "Colorado Springs Guidelines" (CSG) delineate the rules by which Hebrew and Greek masculines can be translated into English generics. These translation principles represent the work of a group of scholars called together by Dr. James Dobson at Colorado Springs, Colorado to address issues raised by the publication of the NIVI.
The immediate cause of the Colorado Springs conference was an article by Susan Olasky, entitled THE STEALTH BIBLE: The Popular New International Version is Quietly Going 'Gender Neutral,' published in the March 29, 1997 edition of World Magazine (pg. 12). In this article, Olasky disclosed that Larry Walker, a member of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) for the NIV had said that the consensus of the CBT was to have a gender-inclusive version replace the NIV. The article was followed by subterfuge and denial on the part of both the NIV publisher, Zondervan, and the copyright holder, the IBS. Despite their charges that World Magazine had misrepresented the facts, indisputable evidence later came to light vindicating Ms. Olasky and World Magazine. That evidence was in the form of a letter sent from Lars Dunberg, International President of the IBS, to Dr. David Scholer of the liberal, feminist organization Christians for Biblical Equity (CBE), and later published in that organization's newsletter, Priscilla Papers (11:1, Winter 1997, p. 33). Here is the full text of that letter:
Dear Dr. David Scholer:
I read with great interest your article on the NIV Inclusive Language Edition, "An Important But Mysterious Event," (Priscilla Papers, Fall 1996). As International President of the International Bible Society, I'm happy to break the "silence" and solve the mystery for you.
The inclusive addition of the NIV was completed last year. As it was ready to be published, it was decided that because International Bible Society/Zondervan was going to release a New International Reader's Version, the NIV at 3.5 grade reading level, during the summer of 1996, the NIRV should be released first. This edition is inclusive in nature.
As that version was not ready to be launched in Britain until next year, it was decided to go ahead and let Hodder publish the inclusive version this Fall.
Zondervan and IBS will publish an inclusive version of the NIV in the American market. It is not clear yet whether that will be done before the major revision that the IBS has been working on with the Committee on Bible Translation, which has been going on for the last five-six years. It may be that the next addition will include all those changes, and in that case, will not be released until the year 2000. These things are still being debated, that's why we have not been public with it.
I trust that this information will be helpful to you.
Lars B. Dunberg
President Dunberg's letter proves beyond doubt that Olasky's article was correct in its assertions, and that both Zondervan and the IBS colluded in a cover-up of lies and slander against World Magazine and its reporter. Christians must ask themselves why they sunk to such depths and why, if they truly believe gender-inclusive translations are honest representations of God's word, did they prepare for the publication of the TNIV in such a clandestine manner. Nor has there been any apology or repentance forthcoming from either the IBS or Zondervan for their slanderous behavior.
It was in this atmosphere of slings and arrows that Dr. Dobson intervened, calling the aforementioned conference with hopes of resolving these differences. At 7:00 a.m. the very day on which the conference was to begin, the IBS issued a press release saying it had "abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV)."
The IBS also stated that, "The present (1984) NIV text will continue to be published, there are no plans for a further revised edition." 23 Thus, the conference convened in a very hopeful frame of mind. In attendance were Bible scholars, and well known representatives of the U.S. evangelical community, along with Ken Barker and Ron Youngblood, two of the principal
translators and members of the CBT; Lars Dunberg of the IBS; and Bruce Ryskamp, president of Zondervan. Here are the agreed upon guidelines:
Colorado Springs Guidelines for Translation of
Gender-Related Language in Scripture24
A. Gender-related renderings of Biblical language which we affirm:
1. The generic use of "he, him, his, himself" should be employed to translate generic 3rd person masculine singular pronouns in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. However, substantial participles such as ho pisteuon can often be rendered in inclusive ways, such as "the one who believes," rather than "he who believes."
2. Person and number should be retained in translation so that the singulars are not changed to plurals and third person statements are not changed to second or first person statements, with only rare exceptions required in unusual cases.
3. "Man" should ordinarily be used to designate the human race, for example, in Genesis 1:26-27; Ezekiel 29:11; and John 2:25.
4. Hebrew ish should ordinarily be translated "man" and "men," and Greek aner should always be so translated.
5. In many cases anthropoi refers to people in general, and can be translated "people" rather than "men." The singular anthropos should ordinarily be translated "man" when it refers to a male human being.
6. Indefinite pronouns such as tis can be translated "no one" rather than "no man."
7. In many cases, pronouns such as oudeis can be translated as "no one" rather than "no man."
8. When pas is used as a substantive, it can be translated with terms such as "all people" or "everyone."
9. The phrase "son of man" should ordinarily be preserved to retain intercanonical connections.
10. Masculine references to God should be retained.
B. Gender-related renderings which we will generally avoid, though there may be unusual exceptions in certain contexts:
1. "Brother" (adelphos) should not be changed to "brother or sister;" however, the plural adelphoi can be translated "brothers and sisters" where the context makes it clear that the author is referring to both men and women.
2. "Son" (huios, ben) should not be changed to "child," or "sons" (huioi) to "children" or "sons and daughters." (However, Hebrew banim often means "children.")
3. "Father" (pater, ab) should not be changed to "parent," or "fathers" to "parents" or "ancestors."
C. We understand these guidelines to be representative and not exhaustive, and that some details may need further refinement.
After studying these guidelines, we agree that they are representative of the best practices for accurately representing the semantic ranges and meanings of the original languages in English. These seem to be, in general, the guidelines used in the latest formal-equivalent English translations (e.g., the ESV and NET).
In investigating claims of usage outside the bounds of these guidelines, for instance in Strauss' book, 25 we have invariably found either 1) the author tries to build a general case from a single aberrant rendering, or 2)his arguments don't fit the lexical facts.
The IBS issued its press release saying they had "abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV)." And, that "The present (1984) NIV text will continue to be published, there are no plans for a further revised edition." Then representatives of the CBT and Zondervan signed the CSG, signaling their intent to follow them.
"National newspapers carried stories reporting that the plans for a gender-neutral NIV had been cancelled: USA Today (May 28, 1997, 3A); New York Times (May 29, 1997, A9), and the Associated Press (May 28 1997, dispatch, subsequently carried by many papers.")26
Yet, despite the assurances, the IBS, CBT and Zondervan turned around 180 degrees and went ahead and published the TNIV. The January 25, 2005 issue of World Magazine's article BEYOND STEALTH (pg. 30), asked "How could the IBS and Zondervan violate their agreement so flagrantly? . . . In July 2002, the president of the IBS, Peter Bradley, in an article for the IBS's publication Light Magazine, said that the translators had to "withdraw" from the Colorado Springs Guidelines because they conflicted with the translation guidelines of the Forum of Bible Agencies, to which IBS subscribes. But Bible scholars Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress, in their book The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy, show that the guidelines for Bible Agencies do not address the issue of gender language at all."
Lie compounded upon lie. Scripture tells us that the devil is the father of all lies. So, how can Christians trust the IBS, Zondervan or the Committee on Translation of the NIV anymore? Like some Clintonesque politician, these organizations have developed a habit of lying whenever it suits their purpose.
Specific Observations About Today's New International Version
In Appendix 2 of his book27 Strauss provides a chart comparing sixteen English versions as to their use of inclusive language. Since his book was published seven years before the complete TNIV was published, it couldn't be included in the comparison. The chart looks at 100 verses throughout the Old and New Testament, then totals the number of inclusive verses for each Bible as well as verses which use "resumptive masculine pronouns" (RMP). An example of an RMP would be: "A man jumped in his car," as opposed to "A person jumped into his car," where the "man" is changed to "person," but the resumptive pronoun "his" is retained. This is a little better than "The person jumped into their car."
Since the TNIV was not included, we looked up each of the verses and charted them. We give the results here for eight Bibles, including the TNIV, for comparison's sake:
| Version |
KJV |
NKJV |
NASB |
NIV |
TNIV |
NIVI |
CEV |
NSRV |
| Total inclusive verses |
0 |
2 |
3 |
17 |
89 |
94 |
97 |
97 |
| Total RMP |
N/A |
2 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
We went further, using CSG A.4, which, as we observed, says "Hebrew ish should ordinarily translated "man" and "men," and Greek aner should almost always be so translated. Of the 100 verses used by Strauss, we found that of the 44 NT verses cited, eight used the Greek aner, which should "almost always" be translated as man in English. From the 56 OT verses we found 26 used the Hebrew ish, which should "ordinarily" be translated as man or men. It was found that the NIV translated all eight occurrences of aner in a gender-neutral way. The TNIV did slightly better, translating six of the eight verses in a gender-neutral way. Likewise, the NIVI translated 24 of the 26 ish passages as gender-neutral, whereas the TNIV did this 23 out of 26 times.
These findings show beyond any shadow of a doubt that the TNIV is only slightly less gender-neutral than its British counterpart, the NIVI. Compared with its predecessor, the NIV, which did not have gender-neutrality as its objective, the TNIV has gone off the deep end.
From 1997 through 2005, the IBS, CBT and Zondervan have heard the combined voice of the U.S. Evangelical churches that such a translation was not wanted, but in their arrogance and academic elitism they went ahead and published the TNIV anyway. Some 50% of Zondervan's income in past years has come from NIV sales. With the recent publication of the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New English Translation (NET), both very readable formal equivalents, along with the old faithful KJV, NKJV and NASB, evangelicals ought to consider buying these rather than the NIV in the future.
Egalitarianism vs Complimentarianism - Another Important Consideration
Egalitarianism and Complementarianism are two theological views of the God-ordained relationship between men and women. Egalitarianism is the guiding principle behind gender-neutral language, equating male authority and headship as sources of bias. Egalitarians argue that male authority and headship are results of the Fall, and that the predominance of male nouns and pronouns in Scripture are carryovers from an idol worshipping patristic society.
Complimentarians believe that male headship and authority find their origins in Creation, not the Fall, and ultimately are modeled after the relationship within the Trinity. From eternity, the Son and Holy Spirit have submitted to the headship and authority of the Father, and yet, all three Persons of the Trinity are equally, essentially and intrinsically, God. Like so many of the good things given to man by the Creator, male headship and authority have often been transmogrified into male tyranny and abuse through indwelling sin.
The biblical perspective is that both man and woman were created in God's image. As Genesis 1:27 puts it, "So God created man (i.e., Adam) in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Genesis 2:20-24 fills in background details saying that ". . .But for Adam no suitable helper was found (i.e., among the animals). So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.' FOr this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
From the prior Genesis quotes a number of things are evident: 1) in order of creation man was first; 2) woman was created out of man; 3) woman was created for man as a helper; 4) man named woman; and finally, 5) all this happened before the Fall occurred.
Chapter 3 of Genesis goes on to describe the Fall. Here we learn that Eve was deceived (1 Tim 2:14), not Adam, and Eve was the first to sin -- Adam followed his wife's example rather than God's command. Yet throughout Scripture, that first sin is attributed to Adam not Eve.
As Paul states it in Romans 5:12, "Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." It is clear that Adam bore Eve's blame. Why? Because Adam, as Eve's head, was responsible for her actions.
This headship predated the Fall. In other words, the relationship was ordained by God at creation.
Also throughout Scripture it is always the case that the one in authority names those under him. This can be seen in the cases of God changing the name of Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah, or in Jesus changing Simon's name to Peter. In technical terms, all this suggests the "federal" headship of man. "Federal" infers the centralizing of authority in a governing body. In the U.S. this central government is that seated in Washington, DC. A biblical example of federal headship is given in Hebrews Chapter 7. There the story is told of Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek, who was "king of Salem and priest to the God Most High." Melchizedek blessed Abraham which, according to verse seven, meant he was greater than Abraham. Even though Levi, and the priesthood God would establish through his progeny would not exist for another 400 years, in paying the tithe to Melchizedek Abraham was acting as federal head for the Levitical priesthood. The author of Hebrews puts it this way in verse nine: "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tithe, paid the tithe through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor."
In the same way, Adam, our father according to the flesh, caused all future generations to suffer from the effects of his Fall. This also is true for the second Adam, Jesus Christ. All those who place their faith in Him benefit vicariously from His sacrifice for sin. So we see the idea of headship is pervasive throughout the Bible.
The idea of male headship is carried over into the New Testament. In
1 Corinthians 11:3 it is written, "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
Another example is Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should also submit to their husbands in everything." In speaking of male headship, Paul refers back to pre-Fall Genesis for its source, saying, "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Cor. 11:8-9). The apostle Peter, in Peter 3:1, likewise implores wives to be submissive to their husbands. The key thing for husbands to remember is that submission comes by the choice of the wife as she decides to follow God's command. It is a matter of her Christian conscience, not her husband's badgering. It is between her and the Lord. Men need to pay attention to what they are commanded to do, not what their wives are supposed to do. Men are to love, care for, provide for, respect, and protect their wives. A husband isn't to be harsh the wife God has given him. For Christian submission is always a matter of choice, not coercion. A Christian husband is still obligated, "to consider others better than himself," "to bear with others weaknesses," and to "look not only after his own interests, but also after the interests of others." These attitudes are to be applied in his relationship to his wife, just as with other Christians.
In his book, 28 Grudem gives ten arguments proving male headship existed before the Fall. These are:
1. Creation Order (Adam before Eve) - Gen. 2:7, 18-19; 1 Tim. 2:13
2. Federal Headship of Humankind - 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49; Ro. 5:12-21
3. The Naming of Woman (Adam names Eve) - Gen. 2:23
4. The Naming of the Human Race (Called "Man" by God) - Gen. 5:2
5. Creation Purpose (Eve to help Adam) - Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:9
6. Primary Accountability (For the Fall) - Gen. 3:9
7. Conflict (of Curse), (Distortion of creation Role) - Gen. 3:16 (See explanation, which follows).
8. Christ's Restoration of the Created Order - Col. 3:18-19
9. Mystery (Marriage as a metaphor for Christ and His church) - Eph. 5:32-33
10. Trinity Parallel (Equality with submission) - 1 Cor. 11:3
Explanation of #7: In Genesis 3:16, God says to Eve, "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." The Hebrew here supports the idea that the wife's desire will be for her husband's, God's given authority, and she will try to usurp it (even as feminists today would encourage).
The proof-text for the egalitarian point of view is found in Galatians 3:28 where Paul writes that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for your are all one in Christ Jesus." But they lift this verse out of context and expand it to mean that there are no differences between men and women. But as a wise man once said, "A proof text taken out of context is a pretext." In the context of Galatians chapter 3, Paul is contrasting the law, as a means of salvation, to justification by faith. The equality of Jew and Greek, slave and freeman, male and female is found in justification by faith. It is by faith, not the law, that all will be saved who are to be saved, and it is in this sense that Paul meant there is no difference between men and women. Paul's statement is not to be construed as obliterating the differences between men and women that God ordained at Creation.
Another argument given by egalitarians to justify their assertions is based on their theory of "Biblical Trajectory." A trajectory is a path that something follows, a bullet, for example. The notion of biblical trajectory insists that a trajectory of increasing equality can be traced from Genesis through Revelation, and that the biblical authors intended that issues of equality would continue to expand along this path even beyond where the BIble falls silent on the matter.
Of course evangelicals believe that biblical revelation is progressive. That is to say that doctrines are introduced in a nascent form and then gradually developed in greater detail in subsequent books. But we also believe that universal revelation, that is, revelation authoritative to all mankind, ended with the death of the last apostle, John. Any trajectory stopped with the last word of Revelation, like a bullet hitting an armored plate. To argue otherwise is to insist that extra-biblical teachings may have the same authority as the Bible -- which we emphatically deny.
Egalitarians offer other arguments to prove their case for gender equality, particularly for women in the ministry. First, they insist that different conclusions can be reached according to which verses one chooses to emphasize. Our view is that Scripture is self-consistent and should be understood in its overall context. Second, those, like the Assemblies of God, hold that Scriptures are not emphatic concerning women in the ministry, therefore in such cases, ministerial experience should be our guide. While we grant Christian liberty to our brethren in the Assemblies of God, we see in texts such as 1 Timothy 3:1-12, and Titus 1:5-9, very emphatic statements against women in the pulpit. Experience with women in the pulpits of liberal denominations can be easily adduced to speak ill of the practice. Third, they aver that the authority of Scripture should not be adhered to at the cost of offending people and in defiance of social movements. For instance, Grudem cites Gordon Fee, theologian and member of the CBT, writing that, "1 Corinthians 14:34-35 should not be considered part of the Bible, and that these verses are 'certainly not binding on Christians.'"29 The verses referred to in Fee's quote are those instructing women to remain silent in church and, if they should have any questions, to ask their husbands later. We acknowledge the hermeneutical difficulties inherent in these verses. But this doesn't authorize us to select those parts of Scripture we will obey and those we will not. We must do the best we can to rightly understand and follow the full counsel of God's Word.
Christ said that He would be the cause of division even amongst families, how much more society in general. God isn't about the game of man-pleasing. He has His own agenda. As Christ said, those who are not for Him are against Him, those who do not gather with Him, scatter, and those who take offense at Him in this present corrupt age, He will take offense at in the age to come. As for me and my House, we will follow the Lord.
Egalitarians' fourth challenge, and very much like the second, is the assertion that "Experience trumps Scripture." Grudem says " . . . as egalitarians, such as Cindy Jacobs, say that God's blessings on the ministries of women pastors show that what they are doing is right." 30
The truth of this statement is contingent upon how one defines God's blessings. Again, if one looks at the way the great majority of old denominations that began ordaining women have lost their congregations, abandoned the authority of Scripture, adopted humanism, and have become "open and accepting" of homosexual behavior, it is plain to see that God's hand is no longer with these apostate churches.
Fifth, still other egalitarians believe that "Contemporary Prophecies" oppose the complimentarian view and support women preaching in the church. We believe that the hallmark of truth is that it doesn't contradict itself. Something cannot be true and false at the same time in the same way; it's that simple. Therefore, since Scripture clearly teaches against women preaching or holding any authority over men in the church, we must conclude that these modern prophecies, in contradicting biblical truth, are not from God.
We find no merit in the egalitarian understanding of the man-woman relationship. Grudem wrote, "While not all egalitarians are liberals, all liberals are egalitarians." 31 There is now plenty of history as to the decisions that cause denominations to gradually slide to the left ultimately culminating in their fall into the abyss. All start with questioning the authority of the BIble. Humanism becomes their guide, with an emphasis on being modern and enlightened. Secular beliefs creep in, replacing creation with evolution, and the complimentarian view with egalitarianism/feminism. Often, these are top-down led changes first going unchecked in denominational seminaries, until those views dominate and biblical views are no longer tolerated, then trickling down to complacence, biblically illiterate, church members. Next, we see women being ordained and displacing men in the pulpit. The authority of Scripture by now is openly repudiated. Next comes acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, symbolized by "open and accepting" congregations. There is no moral compass left in these congregations. The last thing those sitting in the pews want to hear are the convicting words of God. They exist only to support every corrupt sociopolitical movement that comes along. Freedom of speech is limited to PC speech.
English Usage
Previously we discussed the fact that those translators intent on the use of gender-neutral language try to justify this under the aegis of changes in the usage of certain words in English. We have already discussed this argument with respect to the historical generic usage of "he" and "man." We also mentioned how the KJV used language which was archaic at the time of its writing in order to present God's word in an "elevated" language. Even so, we pointed out that the KJV still accounts for some 1/5 to 1/4 of all Bibles purchased today.
We further explored the Colorado Springs Guidelines and how they accurately define how male nouns and pronouns in the original Bible languages should be translated into English in order to best match the semantic range of those words, as well as to preserve the nuances of meaning and intercanonical links. We saw in a quote from Strauss, who supports the use of gender-neutral language, that changes and objections to male-generics were the result of feminist efforts. It is this political nuance of language that we now want to discuss.
It is well known among linguists that politics play an important part in shaping languages. Some such overtones are so subtle as to go unnoticed by the general public, others are blatantly obvious. It is this thinly veiled caving in to feminism on the part of the CBT, under the guise of bringing usage up to date, which rankles Evangelicals. Grudem and Poythress offer two excellent historical examples. The first shows how biblical scholars can buckle under politically correct intimidation. The second demonstrates how politically loaded simple words can become.
"The ideas that are unpopular vary from culture to culture, and the pressure to tone down some elements of the Bible's language will always be present in various forms. To put this in perspective, Baylor University English professor David Lyle Jeffery points to the similar embarrassment with another idea, the idea of Jewishness, in the pre-WW II era in Nazi Germany, and notes how it affected liturgy, hymns, the reading of Scripture in churches, and even Bible translation.
"A notable reluctance to use the words 'Jew' and 'Israel,' had begun to be evident in the German church in the early years of the Nazi era; it expressed itself in the de-Judaizing of biblical language in the liturgy and hymns, in changing of worship references from 'Jews' to 'People of God,' and in eschewing of readings which made the Jewish identity of the 'chosen' people too transparent to disguise by 're-translation' alone. This felonious and often fraudulent strategy had, predictably enough, voluminous academic defense. . . What we are now experiencing is essentially the same phenomenon . . . Their claim, after all, was that the changes simply made the text 'more inclusive,' . . . Why, in our own tremulous time, does the idea of fatherhood, especially of goodly, godly, and finally a divinely modeled exemplar, excite such hostility. . .?" 32
The second story is equally as informative:
"Boston University sociology professor Peter Berger describes the dilemma (i.e., in the use of politically weighted words) by comparison with an analogous situation in the Italian language:"
In modern Italian tu ["you"] is the intimate form of address, lei ["you"] is the formal address. Lei happens to be third person plural. I do not know the history of this, but it has been a pattern of modern Italian for, I would imagine, some two hundred years. No one paid any particular attention to this. Even as a child, I knew what one said in Italian. It mean nothing.
But Mussolini made a speech in which he said that the use of lei is a sign of effeminacy, a degenerate way of speaking Italian. Since the purpose of the fascist revolution was to restore Roman virility to the Italian people, the good fascist did not say lei, the good fascist said voi - from the Latin vos, which is the second person plural. From that point on anyone who used lei or voi was conscious of being engaged in a political act." 33
In the very same way, every Evangelical and each feminist clearly understands the implications of gender-inclusive language. Just as in Nazi Germany there was no lack of biblical scholars willing to defend the National Socialists' cleansing of the Bible's Jewishness, so today in the United States, there are no lack of biblical scholars willing to rid Scripture of its masculine overtones. Both sides of the issue understand the unspoken ramifications of gender-neutral language. And, even if some Evangelicals cannot articulate their suspicions, they intuitively know that the elimination of masculine generics in Scripture has little to do with "shifts in English idiom and usage," as stated on page ix of the TNIV's preface, and everything to do with a feminist social agenda.
We saw earlier how Webster's Dictionary said that the usage of generic male nouns and pronouns is on the decline. This is because what was once regarded as imply correct English usage has been made a symbol of "insensitivity toward women." The women's movement has made abstaining from the use of male generics the shibboleth for testing one's adherence to their cause.
Recently, the headlines have been full of the faux pas made by the president of Harvard University who, in a speech, insinuated that men, in general, may have a better aptitude for science and math than women. This raised the usual knee-jerk hue and cry from the P.C. police. Any mention of men and women being less than equal in all respects immediately raises a tumult among feminists. Despite what Webster's says, many other linguistic authorities maintain that, even if many sensitive souls choose to abstain from the use of male-generics, those who see no real offense in such language will continue to use them. 34
Not only is the male generic unlikely to disappear from the English usage, but it is even less likely that it will ever become incomprehensible to English-speakers. The latest linguistic theory originated by Norm Chomsky of MIT, cites a couple of relevant linguistics terms: "competence" and "performance." Most linguists today agree that the human ability of speech is hard-wired in, what he calls the "deep structure" of our brains. Through a set of grammatical rules called "transformations" the workings of the mind are converted to audible speech, which Chomsky calls "surface structure." Any language capable of producing an infinite number of comprehensible sentences. This is the marvel of speech, that any speaker can use original sentences that are immediately understood to any listener. "Competence" is the ability, inherent to deep structures, and articulated through acquired transformational rules, to produce an infinite number of well formed utterances in a language. While "performance" is simply a record of those utterances." 35
While performance is a record of how a person does speak, for instance, in avoiding male generics, competence is a measure of how the person could speak, and therefore, understand, if they chose to do so. You might say that competence is a measure of speech and word-understanding potential. Understanding male generics is part of an English speaker's competence, even if they choose to not express it. Furthermore, that tiny minority who may have lost this competence can gain it by reading a footnote, marginal note, or by brief teaching. But Strauss vehemently opposes the mere suggestion of such teaching. He begins by citing Grudem:
"Our response to women who say they do not feel included by such language should be to teach them that such usage does not in fact 'exclude women.' . . . People who aren't aware of an inclusive, generic meaning of 'he, him, his' can learn it in a moment."
Then Strauss continues,"This is an extraordinarily condescending statement. It is saying that we will choose the meaning we want English words to have and we will then 'educate' you concerning those meanings." 36
All that Grudem is suggesting is that people who are unaware of the historical and present use of the English male generic be apprised of it so that they aren't needlessly offended due to their ignorance. The "teaching" solution is easy and intuitive and renders the arguments for the need of gender-neutral language null and void -- this is the real reason for Strauss' objections.
It must be kept in mind that in this usage, English best parallels the original languages. Some ask, "What about languages that have no male generics? How do they accurately translate the original texts?" The simple answer is, they cannot. Such foreign languages are not capable of as accurate a translation in these cases as is English. In effect, what Strauss and supporters of feminism are arguing is for a less accurate English translation.
Some More Specific Problems with the TNIV
Translation of the Hebrew word geber. The Brown Driver Briggs (BDB) Hebrew Lexicon (p. 150) defines geber as an "Akkadian loan word, man as strong, distinguished from women, children and non-combatants whom he is to defend." In other words, it is a very masculine form of "man."
The Exhaustive Concordance of the NIV (p. 1407) lists sixty-six occurrences of geber in the Old Testament. The NIV translators translated geber as follows: Man (39); men (7); One (3); man's (20); any (1); blameless+ (1); boy (1); each (1); families (1); he (1); him (1); husband's (1); men's (1); mighty men (1); ruler+ (1); soldiers+ (1); strongman (1); whoever (1); untranslated (1).
It can be seen that the NIV translates geber with its intended male sense.
We looked up all the verses translated man or men in the NIV, in the TNIV. First, we must say that we found actually 40, not 39 occurrences of "man" in the NIV and 5, not 7 occurrences of "men" in the NIV. So, in all, there are 45 occurrences of "man" and "men."
Of these forty-five occurrences, the TNIV translators changed twenty-two (almost 50%) to gender-neutrals. Given the semantic range present in the BDB, there is absolutely no scholarly rationale for such alterations in meaning. Here again, the CBT shows a total lack of scholarly integrity.
Here are a few examples of this text tampering from Job:
Job 4:17
NIV - "Can a man (geber) be more pure than his Maker?
TNIV - "Can a human being be more pure than their Maker?
Job 14:10
NIV - "But man (geber) dies and is laid low; he breathes in his last and is no more.
TNIV - "But human beings die and are laid low; they breathe their last and are no more."
Job 14:14
NIV - "If a man (geber) dies will he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait for my renewal to come."
TNIV - "If someone dies will they live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait for my renewal to come."
In these verses, Job, a man, speaks of himself. Certainly in changing these verses to third-person plural generics the intended personal sense and nuance of these verses is lost. The Book of Job is poetry and here Job is reflecting upon himself in a somewhat detached, outward looking manner of speech. What improvement or clarity has been introduced by the TNIV in these verses? What does such tampering have to do with corrections in English usage? If this isn't gratuitous feminism and changes for politics sake, then what is?
As with the Hebrew, likewise with the Greek. We did a comparison between the NIV and TNIV with regard to the translation of the Greek word aner meaning "man." As you will recall CSG A.4 reads, "Hebrew ish should ordinarily be translated "man" and "men," and Greek aner should almost always be so translated."
The Bauer, Arnt, Gingrich Greek Lexicon (pp. 66-67) agrees with this guideline, defining aner as: "man 1. in contrast to woman . . . Especially husband. 2. Man in contrast to boy . . .3. Used with a word indicating national or local origin (i.e., Acts 8:7, lit. a man Ethiopian, or simply and Ethiopian), 4. Used with adjectives to emphasize the dominant characteristics of a man . . .5. Man with special emphasis on manliness . . .6. Equivalent to tis (tiv), someone (i.e., a study 37 showed that all NT references were men, thus "some men" would be a better NT rendering) . . . 7. A figure of a man or of heavenly beings who resemble men . . . 8. Of Jesus as judge of the world . . . "
The NIV translators kept to these definitions. Of the 217 occurrences of aner in the NT the NIV translated it: men (64), man (63), husband (37), brothers+
(12), husbands (12), husband's (2), Jew+ (2), man's (2), other ways (15), left untranslated (8).
We chose the three most common usages, "men, man and husband" to compare with the TNIV. Of the 164 combined occurrences of these three words, we chose 52 verses at random to compare. Of these 52, the TNIV translated 16 generically, that is, 32% of the time. This is yet one more example of the CBT's complete disregard for semantic range.
Another interesting fact is that the use of generic language is a one-way proposition. Of all the verses in Scripture which have (1) a female orientation, and 2) describe a universal moral or theological principle equally applicable to both genders (e.g., many of Christ's parables), none are made gender neutral. Why are only masculine references tampered with? We think the answer is obvious enough not to need explanation.
The TNIV Attempts to Tone Down Jewish Responsibility for Christ's Crucifixion
No one wants to be accused of bias, nor of unjustly applying blame to any group of people. As Christians, we know that Christ died for the sins of us all, Jew and Gentile alike. In this sense, we all sent Christ to the cross. Furthermore, the anti-Jewish Inquisitions of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church, especially in Spain, its massacre of Jews during crusades, its crude anti-Semitism are a blot and a stain on church history. It has only been in recent years that some popes have apologized for the Christ-killer image of the Jewish people propagated by that very office. Martin Luther also at times was ambivalent in his treatment of the Jewish people. In some of his writings, he expresses a gross and offensive anti-Semitisim, at other times a biblical view. There is much to be regretted in the church's prior attitude toward and treatment of Abraham's children.
On the other hand, the Bible's portrayal of the Jewish people is an historical object lesson about the blessings of walking in obedience to God, and the curses incumbent on those who choose their own way above His. All who read the story of the nation of Israel can apply the insights they gain to their personal walk, as well as to the destiny of their own nation. Paul often used the clause "first to Jew, then to Gentile" (e.g., Romans 1:16; 2:9,10) as both blessings and curses appertain. As to blessings, they were chosen by God from among all the nations to be the objects of His special attention. God would make Himself known through them. Paul says they "have been entrusted with the very word of "God" (Romans 3:2). In John 4:22, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that "salvation is from the Jews."
As far as curses are concerned, in Romans, chapter 11, Paul likens Gentiles to wild olive branches which have been engrafted into the Jewish domestic olive tree in place of natural branches which have broken off. This happened because of disobedience, on the part of the Jews, with the hope that they would become envious of the engrafted Gentiles. Therefore Gentiles are not to become arrogant about their blessings because they have come at the expense of the Jews, but are to be thankful for their inclusion in the New Covenant. Paul said that his fellow Jews were zealous for God, but not according to knowledge. In trying to establish a righteousness of their own which is by the law, they overlooked the righteousness which comes by faith in Christ. In so doing Jesus, quoting Isaiah, said of them, "This people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain, their teachings are but rules made by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
So the Jews are preeminent in both blessing and curse. The curses, like the blessings, are upon the nation of Israel as a whole, not just upon the rulers of Israel. This is true of the blame for the persecution and ultimate unjust condemnation of Christ. But the TNIV has involved itself in the exoneration of all Jews, living in Christ's day, by placing the blame on the "Jewish leaders." Even a cursory reading of John's gospel quickly reveals an agenda to replace the word "Jews," in the original text, with the less culpable words "Jewish Leaders." This is an obvious attempt to mute the scriptural message of Jewish complicity in Christ's conviction and crucifixion by consigning blame to the few, rather than to the general population of Jerusalem, its immediate environs, and the many itinerate Jews in Jerusalem for the Passover. Here are some illustrative verses from John:
vss. 5:10, 15, 16; 7:1, 13; 9:22; 18:36; 19:31, 38; 20:19 - "Jewish leaders" in lieu of "Jews; vss. 5:18; 10:33; 18:31 - "they" in lieu of "Jews."
The Jewish leaders, more often than not, reflected the views, values and biases of their constituents. They were neither more or less culpable than the general population. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were both members of the Sanhedrin, yet they were secret believers in Christ who eventually acknowledged Him by their actions.
In contrast, much of the persecution experienced by Christ, and later by His apostles and followers, was at the hands of the common Jews. A reading of some of the early Church Fathers38 is informative in seeing how this persecution continued long after the deaths of the apostles. For example, in the First Apology of Justin, the Martyr, (Chapter 31) written in defense of Christians (c. 160 AD) to the Roman emperor Hadrian, he wrote, "But though they (the Jews) read them (the Scriptures) they do not understand what they say, but consider us (the Christians) their enemies and opponents, putting us to death or punishing us, as you (the Romans) do, whenever they can, as you can realize - for in Jewish War recently past Bar-Cochba, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, ordered Christians only to be subjected to terrible punishments, unless they would deny Jesus the Christ and blaspheme [him]." 39
There were two Jewish Wars against the Romans. The first lasted from 63 AD to 71 AD, and the second, mentioned above by Justin the Martyr, lasted from 132 AD to 135 AD. The first of these was that prophesied by Jesus Christ in Matthew Chapter 24. In his history, Philip Schaff describes this first war: "The tragedy of Jerusalem prefigures in miniature the final judgment, and in this light it is represented in the eschatological discourse of Christ, who foresaw the end from the beginning. The forbearance of God with his covenant people, who had crucified their own Savior, reached at last its limit . . . The hour of the 'great tribulation' and fearful judgment drew near. The prophecy of the Lord approached its literal fulfillment. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, the temple burned, and not one stone was left upon another." 40
The war ended with the famous siege of Masada (72-73 AD), a fortress built upon a monolith near the Dead Sea by King Herod the Great. With the Roman siege ramp nearly completed, the defenders of Masada, including women and children, cut their own throats rather than surrender to Rome. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus estimated that 1,356,460 Jews were killed in the first war and that some 101,700 were sold into slavery, sent to mines, or were sacrificed in the arena as gladiators. 41
The Triumphal Arch of Titus, which still stands in Rome, commemorates the victory of Vespasian and his son, Titus, over the Jews. Carved in relief on this monument are pictures of the triumphal procession held in Rome in 71 AD, depicting temple loot, including a menorah, being held aloft by the Romans. This was the first instance of God's judgment on the Jews for their part, as His people, in crucifying His Son. His wrath, as just described, was poured out on the entire population of Jerusalem, except the Christians who, being warned of the impending judgment, fled to the town of Pella in Decapolis, under the protection of Agrippa.
The second war was led by a man dubbed Simeon Ben Kosebah (or Bar Cochba) by the notable Rabbi Aqiba. The name is drawn from the messianic passage in Numbers 24:7, meaning "the son of the star." Thus Bar Cochba was considered, and considered himself to be, the messiah. Others called him Bar-Koziba, "the son of falsehood." As mentioned, he violently murdered Christians who refused to recant their faith. The emperor Hadrian's legions extinguished the rebellion in 135 AD. The aftermath was 500,000 Jews killed, and more sold into slavery, 385 villages and 50 fortresses leveled. 42
Hadrian purposed to wipe the Jews from the pages of history. He renamed Israel, "Syrian Palestine," and Jerusalem"Aelia Capitolina." He built a temple to Venus, and erected a statue of Jupiter in Jerusalem, and banned all Jews from their capital on pain of death. This event ended Jewish sovereignty over the territory of Israel until it was restored in 1947-48. There is little doubt that this final episode was what Christ foretold in Luke 21:24, when He said, "They will fall by the sword and be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
The latter history should convince us that God was not displeased just with the leaders of Israel, but with the whole of Israel. The TNIV, in "toning down" what they perceived as harsh language toward Jews, really break the cause and effect links between the Jews' sin in rejecting their Savior and the wrath which befell them. If left as the original texts were intended, we can understand the miseries suffered by the Jewish race, the reasons behind their being scattered among the nations, as well as their eventual restoration and redemption. In other words, the Jews suffered harsh consequences when they betrayed their special place as God's covenant people and rejected Christ. This is all part of God's plan and purpose and isn't to be meddled with, no matter how good the intentions may be.
Another Minor Objection
For some reason, probably as a further excuse of a new translation, the TNIV changes the spellings of some one hundred and twenty biblical proper names, which are listed in appendix 2. Even if these may represent more accurate pronunciations of Hebrew names, they are more of a hindrance than a help. Unless everyone else adopts these spellings, which we highly doubt, they only serve to confuse communications between Christians.
Bible Ratings
Both of the charts below are extensions of ones found in both Strauss' 43 and Grudem & Poythress' 44 books, in that they exclude Roman Catholic translations, and include versions not yet in print at the time their books were published.
| Rating & Comments |
Not Gender Neutral |
More literal, preserves form |
| |
Interlinear |
Interlinear |
| 1 Very literal, NT trans. based on eclectic text |
NASB |
NASB |
| 2 Archaic language |
KJV |
KJV |
| 1 Very literal, NT trans. based upon Textus Receptus |
NKJV |
NKJV |
| 1 Great new version |
ESV |
ESV |
| 1 Great new version, wonderful notes |
NET |
NET |
| 2 A few theological matters |
RSV |
RSV |
| 3 Okay for reading, not GN, some dynamic weaknesses. |
NIV |
NIV |
| 6 GN, but maintains a scholastic integrity to some degree in usage. |
REB |
NIV |
| 10 A paraphrase, not useful for serious study. Not GN. |
LB |
TNIV |
| 5 |
GNB/TEV |
NIVI |
| 10 Written on a 3.5 level; older version is GN. |
NIrV |
NIrV |
| 10 |
TNIV |
GNB/TEV |
| 10 |
NIVI |
REB |
| 10 |
GW |
NCV |
| 10 |
NLT |
NLT |
| 10 |
CEV |
CEV |
| 10 |
NRSV |
LB |
| |
Very Gender Neutral |
More paraphrastic, changes form |
Note: Comments in Column 1 refer to the Bibles in Column 2. In the table above, the lower the number rating, the higher the recommendation. A rating of "1" means highly recommended, that of "10" means avoid its use. The following is a key to the version abbreviations.
Abbreviation |
Title |
Abbreviation |
Title |
| NASB |
New American Standard Version |
GBN/TEV |
Good News Bible/Today's English Version |
| KJV |
King James Version |
NIrV |
New International readers Version |
| ESV |
English Standard Version |
TNIV |
Today's New International Version |
| NET |
New English Translation |
GW |
God's Word |
| RSV |
Revised Standard Version |
NCV |
New Century Version |
| NIV |
New International Version |
NLT |
New Living Translation |
| REB |
Revised English Bible |
CEV |
Contemporary English Version |
| LB |
Living Bible |
NRSV |
New Revised Standard Version |
Conclusions
What has been said here is only a very small part of what can be said. We could have looked at more specific verses, or expanded on almost any of the subjects touched upon in this text. But we hope that what has been written within is sufficient to clearly make our point concerning the reasons why we reject the entire concept of gender-neutral translations.
Part of the blame for the move toward gender-neutral translations lies squarely with Christian complacency. Too many Christians have given up on thinking and want translations that are "easy to read" even at the expense of truth. This is simply the Christian version of the dumbing down of America.
We hope to have demonstrated some of the things Christians should consider when they choose a Bible. Who wrote it, and do they have an agenda beyond providing an accurate translation? What are the legitimate and illegitimate arguments proffered by advocates of gender-neutrality? What are the dangers of taking dynamic translation theory too far? What are the levels of translation, and how do they affect nuance? What is the egalitarian agenda? What is semantic range, and gender system as they relate to accurate translation?
We hope we have raised a healthy doubt within you that naive trust of once reputable Christian organizations is no longer safe. We must be vigilant, as our Christian predecessors were, or we place ourselves in jeopardy of allowing God's word to be corrupted. Quoting Bishop Pole, "Once allow the worm to gnaw the root, and we must not be surprised if the branches, the leaves, and the fruit, little by little decay." 45