Battle of Biblical Proportions: The cost of a gender-neutral bible

National Review Online--Taste ^ | Friday, June 27, 2003 | DALE BUSS

[stands2reason]

Battle of Biblical Proportions: The cost of a gender-neutral bible.

HarperCollins's purchase of Zondervan Corp. in 1988 has paid off handsomely, in huge profits in the fast-growing Christian-publishing market. But these days, Zondervan/HarperCollins is also dealing with a self-made dilemma that would challenge Solomon: how to promote simultaneously both the most beloved literal translation of the Bible, the New International Version (NIV), and the most polarizing new rendering, the gender-adjusted Today's New International Version (TNIV).

[Carry_Okie]

Besides our 1611 KJV, we find George Lamsa's translation of the Aramaic Bible a useful parallel reference. It clears up a number of key details in Christ's life and teaching that I have always found disturbing in the KJV.

[Technogeeb]

but why did they alter the meaning of the text? What good does it do at all? It just misleads people.

If you think about what you said for a moment, you will realize that you have answered your own question.

[longtermmemmory]

such as?

[Carry_Okie]

See 21. Consider these two verses, first MAT 6:13:

KJV: ...and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,

Lamsa: And do not let us enter into temptation, but deliver us from evil.^2
2Wrong, wickedness, error.

Would God lead you into temptation?

And this from Matthew 27:46 (a verse that has always troubled me, and yes I do know about the unsourced characterization of the verse as a reference to Psalm 22:1):

KJV: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Lamsa: Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani! translated as
My God, my God, for this I was spared!^1
1This was my destiny.

We read the KJV in most instances, principally because the language is so beautiful. But we keep Lamsa open to help cover questions. I am told that the reason for the difference in Lamsa's translation is that he was raised speaking Aramaic and understands Aramaic idiom.

[Carry_Okie]

See #24.

[mombonn]

The New International Version was produced by scholars working under the auspices of the not-for-profit International Bible Society, in an effort to combine accessible English with the accuracy of the original Greek and Hebrew.

The problem, critics say, is that "sister" isn't found in the original language, nor is "against you," nor is "offender." And on and on.

Sounds more like a paraphrase than a translation to me. Personally, if I want a paraphrase, I'll stick with The Message.

[pepsi_junkie]

I agree with you. I frankly was pretty open minded about this but the new text for the cited passage

"If your brother sins, rebuke him" to "If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender."

changes the meaning entirely. Rather than admonishing sin in general, it changes it to sins against YOU, a much narrower reading. It isnt the gender neutrality that is the issue here, it is the unnecessary other change that basically modifies the overall meaning. I have to wonder what other fundamental changes this new language results in.

[Van Jenerette]

...for class discussion.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for the comments. I'm not familiar with Lamsa. Could you provide a little more information.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"The TNIV obviously changes more than just "gender" references, it seems an attempt to rewrite Christianity. That Luke 17:3 rewrite shows it. It says in the PC version that you should rebuke a "brother or sister" only if he sins against you. Big difference from the real version."

Hmm, which shows that it is actually more accurate in that verse than the original NIV:
"Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." Luke 17:3, KJV

[Carry_Okie]

Best you Google it yourself. There is a lot out there on Lamsa, with too many wild supporters and detractors for me to compile the comments for you objectively.

[DoughtyOne]

Good point. Thanks.

[Godzilla]

Thats found in the book of second opinions isn't it.

[Iscool]

The New International Version was produced by scholars working under the auspices of the not-for-profit International Bible Society, in an effort to combine accessible English with the accuracy of the original Greek and Hebrew. It has swallowed up 45% of the U.S. Bible market alone.

Don't you just hate it when you get lied to...They have never seen the original Greek...They don't know anyone who's seen the original Greek...The original Greek doesn't exhist...They are liars and they want us to accept them as the scholars of the Bible...

And what about the Hebrew??? The Hebrews have as close to the original Hebrew as you can get...If it doesn't match theirs, it ain't too original...

Since 1900, there are over 40 translations out there and they all claim to use the original languages and yet they all say different things...What a farce...

[kkindt]

But isn't the issue one of honesty and historical integrity? IF we accept this kind of historical revisionism of the Scriptures then we are giving a nod to dishonesty.

also - you indicate that using one of these perverted Bibles might help those whose sexuality is perverted to come to Christ? How would this work since our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has seen to it that the original languages of the Scriptures we have received use masculine words but in an inclusive way? IF there is something WRONG - i.e. sinful - about using masculine words inclusively - i.e. he or man to refer to both male and female - then CHrist sinned and is not a perfect man and how then can He die for our sins?

Also if those who take offense at the use of "he" to refer to males and females were in the audience when the Lord Jesus Christ used language this way would they have objected to Him doing so and taken issue with the Saviour - correcting His language use like they know better than He did?

Also some say - oh it was cultural He just went along with teh culture of His day - yet then they will turn around and show how He did not go with the culture in other ways because the culture was wrong.

[connectthedots]

For all my criticism of a certain Calvinist denomination and the hyper-Calvinism associated with it, there can be no question that that particular denomination spear-headed and began the effort that resulted in the NIV and that hyper Calvinist Edwin Palmer played a very major role in that effort.

[drstevej]

Did you ever define hyper-Calvinism? If so direct me to your definition.

[Hat-Trick]

I can't wait to see Proverbs 21:9. The NASB has it as: "It is better to live in a corner of a roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman." If it weren't for eternal significance/consequences of this new translation, this would be a hoot.

Hat-Trick

[connectthedots]

I'll try to find the post and also the one where one of the FR Calvinists came up with a definition and agreed that it was also hyper-Calvinism.

[connectthedots]

If you hadn't spent a few days in the Sodom and Gamorrah of the United States last week, you wouldn't have missed it. ;)

At this post, I cited Edwin Palmer and Jude24, a Calvinist, later agreed that if the quote was a fair attribution to Palmer, that in his opinion Palmer could fairly be called a hyper-Calvinist. You can find the post HERE.

I'll look for the other quote from a PCA site that also defines hyper-Calvinism. I would be a bit surprised if even you try to defend the quote of Palmer.