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).

[stands2reason]

I think you're getting the NIV, which is a good translation (your first paragraph), and the new PC TNIV (Your second). Zondervan really screwed up by giving them similar names.

[stands2reason]

Would God lead you into temptation?

Wow, good point. Can you tell me more about this Lamsa?

[Jean Chauvin]

"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."

(reprint of the "here" quote):

I quote from Palmer's The Five Points of Calvinism

Forordination means God's sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen. He has foreordained everything: the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist - even sin. pages 24-25

Two points.

A) The two definitions of "hyper-Calvinism" which you have presented are 1) the emphasis of God's sovereignty to the exclusion of man's responsibility and 2) one who "blindly defends Calvinism".

Regardless of which definition you currently accept, neither of those definitions are remotely demonstrated in Palmer's above quote that you have posted as supposed "evidence" of his "hyper-Calvinism".

B) The above quote is not "hyper-Calvinsim", but a teaching of Basic Calvinism 101. You have attempted to provide this evidence before. When you did so the last time (Post #98 on the "NIV Footnotes" thread), I countered by demonstrating that this very teaching was precisely what is taught in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism -two of the oldest Calvinistic confessions.

To quote my comments from Post #99 on the "NIV Footnotes" thread:

In fact(!), we need only go to the Classic Reformed Confessions just to see how truly reformed Palmer's position is:

Article 13: The Doctrine of God's Providence We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that ~nothing~ happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ's disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.

This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground^20 without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.

from the Belgic Confession, 1561.

__________________________________________

Question 27. What dost thou mean by the providence of God? Answer: The almighty and everywhere present power of God; (a) whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs (b) heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, (c) fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, (d) riches and poverty, (e) yea, and ~all things~ come, not by chance, but be his fatherly hand. (f)

Lord's Day 10, Question and Answer 27, from the Heidelberg Catechism, 1563

This is getting pretty old, ctd. Put up, or shut up!

Jean

[redhead]

"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"

Double "Hmmmm". In the old RSV, it says, "Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him..."

[redhead]

LAMSA Bible online.

[egomeimihi]

So what Aramaic manuscripts does Lamsa use in his "translation?"

[egomeimihi]

Replace "woman" with "life partner."

[drlevy88]

How about "if your sibling offends against you, rebuke it" (ecch)

[drlevy88]

Multiple versions of the bible are like having multiple standards of linear measurement.

Well go to the original greek and hebrew then. Everything else is just a view of it, though it may be a good view it is only a view.

[jude24]

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.

Actually, what jude24 said was, "it was possible" Palmer was a hyper-calvinist, but that jude24 didn't find the phrase "hypercalvinist" useful because it is a subjective assessment.

He did not say that Palmer was a hyper-calvinist.

[stands2reason]

Rather than admonishing sin in general, it changes it to sins against YOU, a much narrower reading.

I think that fits in with the new, nonjudgmental pagan/humanistic mindset that has stolen into the mainline churches. "If if hurt none, do as thou wilt"--- the only morality is the one where there is another victim. And that victim has the only right to make a moral judgment.

See, it's a lot "nicer" that way. If your brother (or sister) is sinning and the person he's sinned against is too weak to speak up, well, it's not your place to say anything. And if the only one he is hurting is himself--his own soul? If you care, you're just being a busybody. If he isn't hurting anybody else, where's the sin? (See: mainline church views on homosexuality)

I can think of no other logical reason for the change.

[stands2reason]

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

Except the KJV isn't necessarily more correct than the NIV.

[stands2reason]

Are you saying that no Bible is accurate?

[Wrigley]

That's how I took your comment.

[foreverfree]

bump

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. Sounds like a sorority Bible.

[rwfromkansas]

It is not something that is good to post here due to length, but this extensively documents the TNIV's alterations to be unfaithful in many cases.

http://www.cbmw.org/tniv/categorized_list.html

[rwfromkansas]

Well crap. My college is a member of this organization, so it looks like I will have to write a column about this when I get back to college in the fall if I can remember to do so.

Endorsement of the TNIV:

"As a layman, I have benefited by more than a dozen translations and paraphrase versions of God's Word. Now I am excited to read personally and publicly this updated TNIV so relevant to our times. May the Holy Spirit use this to draw in the cautious skeptic, edify the believer and advance unity in the Body."

Robert C. Andringa, Ph. D.
President
Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, Washington, D.C.

[RaceBannon]

I found it kind of strange. I only read the TEV version of the Apocrypha anyways, definitely not God Inspired, no spirit conviction in it.

[SWake]

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.

I am no fan of gender neutral (I still insist on actor/actress, fireman/firewoman, etc, etc).

However, I just checked my NA 27 and my Stephen's TR. There is a difference in the text with this particular Scripture. The Stephens TR reads (transliterated) "de hamarte eis se ho adelphos su epitimason auto". The most literal translation of that would be something like "and sins toward you the brother of you admonish him".

The NA27 reads "ean hamarte ho adelphos su epitimason auto". The most literal translation would be "if sins the brother of you admonish him".

This is a case where there is a legitimate difference in the source material, and they chose a different source. I can't tell you why, but they did have a legitimate reason to go with that translation. It is not an insertion of "against you" for no reason (or for a bad reason).