© 11 Colin Melbourne
Part 2 of 5
Review of the new NIV Gender Neutral Terms
Image courtesy of Biblica
The NIV 2011 opens with a mollifying Preface from the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) gently justifying the re-introduction of gender inclusive terminology.
The official NIV Biblica website takes further pains to assure us:
Nowhere in the updated NIV® (nor in the TNIV®, nor in any of the committee discussions leading up to either version) is there even the remotest hint of any inclusive language for God. The revisions solely surround inclusive language for mankind.
English Jus’ Don’t Dance Like Greek
Compared to other languages, English is graceless regarding gender inclusivity. Being a man, I hadn’t noticed this until Drs. Daisy and TL. Osborn alerted me to it in the early 1990s. Since then; I adjusted in line with God’s Spirit, and I’ve read the Bible, and proclaimed the Gospel, using gender inclusive terms.
Neither Male nor Female in Christ
God doesn’t view women as second-class; sisters have the exact same redemption, and potential, as brothers in God’s Family. When the Scriptures do not differentiate between male and female, English Bibles ought to reflect this wherever possible.
It’s not strident feminism or militant women’s liberation, it’s simply a case of translating from precise Hebrew and Greek into the sometimes less nuanced English language.
Therefore, the most obvious change in the NIV 2011, the attempt to use inclusive terms, doesn’t in itself perturb me, and has been carried out with a little more tact than in the now gratefully dead and buried TNIV. (R.I.P)
Nice Legs: Shame about the Face
But I admit, that in practise, using the gender inclusive English terms is ungainly in speech, and strained or repetitive in print.
Here’s two typical examples;
NIV 2011 1 Jn. 4:15;
If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.
It’s gender inclusive, but ungrammatical; singular subject “anyone”, with plural object “them” and “they”. Is this the best English can do? Both the plural and singular options would have been covered by “anybody”. But the KJV “whosoever” is the most elegant and appropriate word.
Now try this one; take a deep breath, you’ll need it!
NIV 2011 1 John 4:20-21;
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother or sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
Phew! Perhaps after we’ve embraced the concept, and adjusted our thinking, we can revert to standard English without offending our beloved sisters in Christ.
Personally, I’m Not Plural
More serious, than losing fluency, is the consequence of employing plurals such as “them” and “they” where the Greek is singular. An example of this is Rev. 3:20 NIV 2011;
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
Contrast the final clause with the NIV 1984’s;
I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
The risen Christ is speaking about the closest intimacy possible between you and Him: His Spirit in yours, God living in you. The main point is He becomes one with the believer in spirit.
Yet here, the use of “they” instead of “he” makes it sound like a collective, and the sense of individual rapport is lost. You are also distanced from Him, by being addressed as “that person” instead of “him”. Gender inclusive, but fuzzy, and impersonal.
The use of the plural “them” and “they”, where the Greek is singular, is common in the new NIV. Preachers forced to use this edition are going to get very tired of saying, “That there them is singular in the Greek”!
It paints a layer of obscurity over the scripture, instead of opening the word to us.
<< Blood-bought, Tried and Tested: Treat yourself to a King James Bible and discover why it has endured and overcome all pretenders
The Deal-Breaking Verse
One of the biggest blunders of the CBT is the use of “assume authority” in 1 Tim. 2:12: It is plain wrong;
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
The CBT chose this deliberately ambiguous translation because it permits subjective interpretation, allowing each reader to decide if women can be church leaders. However, the key Greek word here, authenteo does not imply “assume authority” at all, it straightforwardly means to “have authority” or to “exercise authority”. As all the other modern translations concur.
It is a clear example of the NIV translators distorting the word of God to accommodate their agenda. It cannot possibly be justified by any claim to be scripturally accurate.
I have no objection to women leaders in the Body of Christ, nor does God, but we take strong exception to corruption of the Bible in order to uphold a socio-political stance.
The feminist-lobby will use the distorted translation of that verse to justify their claim to leadership.
At a stroke the CBT have removed the clearest scriptural obstacle to their demand.
This is the primary reason many denominations will summarily reject the NIV 2011, and switch to another Bible version. Indeed, the US Southern Baptist Convention have already done so.
Next, let’s look at how much has been altered in the NIV:
What’s new in the NIV 2011, and how much has it changed?
© 11 Colin Melbourne