Top-Selling Bible to Be Issued in Gender-Neutral Version

Associated Press ^ | Monday, January 28, 2002 | Associated Press

[FourtySeven]

The International Bible Society said Monday that America's best-selling modern Bible is about to get an update using gender-neutral wording, despite past criticism of that idea from conservative Christians.

The revision will be called "Today's New International Version," or TNIV. The original "New International Version," which has sold more than 150 million copies worldwide since 1978, will remain on the market.

[Darth Sidious]

I use the NIV and have no problem whatsoever with it. It is as accurate as the KJV is, which is as accurate as ANY translation - into ANY language - can probably be with the intention of glorifying God.

There is no "word for word" translation into English: it's just not possible. But for what may be the most thoroughly researched and accurate Bible that's out there right now, check out the New English Translation or NET Bible.

[Bobby777]

Good thing that the Greek and Hebrew languages aren't "gender nuetral".

bingo ... this is another stupid idea like the bishop on P.I. the other night which created his own "god" that does not match the Scripture ... total falsehood ...

The King James Bible

[AMMON-CENTRIST]

the remix post:

EXACTLY Mass! What we are seeing is prophecy in the making. Soon, we will see spiritually bankrupt christianisty (Anti-Christ christianity!) popping up like a pandemic disease! Looks like 2 Thess is coming along nicely!

[humbletheFiend]

The keys have been entrusted to us. We should use them with care.

[FourtySeven]

Thank you all for your input. This has generated many interesting links and viewpoints about the subject of biblical translation, as I had hoped. Much to consider and study, so thanks again!

I hope by putting the "All" in the "To" field that this message of thanks gets to everyone who participated; if anyone knows a more efficient way please freepmail me.

This thanks also goes to anyone else who may post after this post.

[hattend]

(S)He, Hym, Hys, Lord(Lady), or some such other nonsense.

The people who are the most annoyed with the old way are most likely those who don't believe anyway.

Hope this new version tanks

[editor-surveyor]

" But for what may be the most thoroughly researched and accurate Bible that's out there right now..."

The problem with that is that research will only give you the opinion of various men. - Research does not make scripture accurate; prayer and fasting does.

That is what makes the difference between God's word, and a copyrighted compilation of translations of texts that were visibly altered from readings that once conformed with the word.

The men who produced the 'modern' bibles were well-fed entrepreneurs.

[newgeezer]

The men who produced the 'modern' bibles were well-fed entrepreneurs.

You know them all personally, of course.

[anniegetyourgun]

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!"

[Kay]

Thanks. Well spoken.

As per Gal 3:28 (using KJV) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". When the angels sang to the shepherds "peace on earth, good will to men"--are we supposed to think that it is only to "males"? What did God mean? "Men" (males) or "people"?

Many women who live in cultures where females have no value (baby girls are left to die at birth, etc) may be deeply touched to hear that Jesus loves them, not just men. We, in America, take for granted that we are loved by God. Others have no concept that God could possibly love a woman. It is considered heresy.

[Mercat]

Actually, I read a lot of reviews but then I started reading on the BacktotheBible website, their daily verses that get you through the Bible in one year. I'm on my second time through. At first, I would use some of the other translations and/or compare them as I went along but found that the NIV was very readable and that I was comfortable with it theologically. I also enjoy the fact that I can get it read to me on those mornings (like this one) when my poor eyesight is worsened by temporary ulcers and allergies. The experience has blessed me immeasurably and if I were going to worry about getting the exactly correct translation, I would still be reading reviews instead of the Bible. In fact, being type A, I would be studying ancient greek and arabic so I could read the thing in the original. IMHO, without the original language, there will be never ending guesses, some good, some bad, of what the exact wording should be.

[RightWhale]

It would be more refreshing if they would restore the original references rather than eliminate gender based references altogether. They have taken half the meaning out already and they are sending to the recycle bin yet more meaning.

[Mojo-jo-jo]

The term "man" was a universal reference to all humanity. There are a lot of people who don't read that word that way any more.

Since when...bout 1960? Why was it OK from about 70 AD till then? Seems appropriate though...rewrite history...rewrite the Bible. Wonder what God thinks about it?

/Sarcasm off.

[GWfan]

This is just the latest in a long line of events designed to ignore the differences in men and women and to change the God given order of things. God has a definate plan for the way we are to live our lives. The more we stray from it, the harder we make it for ourselves. Some people in my own congregation think I am nuts because I try to obey my husband.

[Jennifer in Florida]

I use the NIV and have no problem whatsoever with it. It is as accurate as the KJV is, which is as accurate as ANY translation - into ANY language - can probably be with the intention of glorifying God.

I agree with you. I use the NIV along with the KJV. The beauty of the language used in the KJV is better for memorizing verses.

If we only had the KJV, how would our children be able to read the Bible? Sure, they could memorize verses but they wouldn't get the full benefits of reading and understanding the scripture for themselves. I bought my daughter a children's Bible in the NIrV version, she is reading the Bible more now that she has this easier version. The different translations have their purpose, and Zondervan clearly notes on their website which are more literal and which are more paraphrased. Check out this chart I found at www.zondervanbibles.com.

I certainly DO NOT agree with this new "politically correct" version though. There is no need for that.

[newgeezer]

Thanks.

It is considered heresy.

They who would diminish the value of women have perverted the Word of God. Men and women are different and equal in the eyes of the Lord. He is the God of order and the God of love.

Interestingly, when we "receive the adoption as sons" in Paul's epistle to the Galatians (4:6), the point is that we all -- men and women -- receive the inheritance. That is precisely why it does not say "children"!

[Kay]

Since you are an American woman, you have the advantage of knowing that you have value. It is our Christian heritage that has permeated our culture. However, there are women who do not know that they have value. Female babies are left out to die at birth. Wives have to throw themselves on the burning pyres of their dead husbands. For these women to hear that God loves "people" as opposed to "men" may be an epiphany to them. Do you think that God only meant "Peace to men" (meaning males)? Please explain your fear and anger at a translation that puts "people" in place of the generic word for humans.

Furthermore, in modern American language for those of us who are under 50, the KJV translates that Balaam's buttocks spoke to him when he faced that angel. Do you think that is an accurate translation?

[newgeezer]

"Dynamic Equivalence" is laughable. Seems like nothing more than a marketing euphemism for "not really literal but, not as much of a paraphrase as some others."

[GWfan]

I suggest you read Proverbs 31 and Song of Solomon.