What gender of "human being" was Jesus? Well as we all know the answer is a MAN So why does the tniv seem fit to introduce the gender neutral term "human being" Answer: to blur the lines.
Philippians 2:5-8, TNIV
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
Plenty more to be found here;
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_jesus.html
***What gender of "human being" was Jesus? Well as we
all know the answer is a MAN So why does the tniv
seem fit to introduce the gender neutral term "human
being" Answer: to blur the lines.***
Presumably, you are commenting on a change from the words "men/man" in vs 7 and 8 of the KJV. Since "men/man" can be a reference to either humanity or maleness, this begs the question as to whether the the KJV intends to emphasize the humanity of Christ or his maleness.
If we read that passage in context, in verse 6 we see the declaration of the divine nature of Christ.
Now, if we are to understand that verse 7 and 8 intends to emphasize the "maleness" of Christ, we then have Christ's divine nature set up with his "maleness".
If we are to understand that verse 7 and 8 intends to emphasize his "humanity", then we have Christs divine nature set up with his "human" nature.
I think you will find that this passage is properly understood as a declaration that Christ has both a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.
But let's look at some other translations of that passage:
***Philippians 2:5-8, TNIV***
(TNIV*) 7 rather he made himself nothing by taking the
very nature of a servant, being made in
***human likeness***.
(NIV) 7 rather he made himself nothing by taking the
very nature of a servant, being made in
***human likeness***.
What you have highlighted as an example of something in the TNIV* that "blurs the lines", reads IDENTICAL to the NIV. I understand the NIV has received its fair share of criticism, but I don't ever recall the NIV being charged with being "gender neutral".
Now lets look at verse 8:
(TNIV*) 8 And being found in appearance as a ***human
being***, he humbled himself by becoming
obedient to death—even death on a cross!
(ESV) 8 And being found in ***human form***, he
humbled himself by becoming obedient to the
point of death, even death on a cross.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that the ESV (English Standard Version), which was intended to be a conservative correction of the RSV, is NOT considered to be a "gender neutral" translation.
Now, lets check the Greek. In Galatians 3:28, a passage making reference to "male" and to "female", we find the Greek word "Arrhen" used to denote "male". (Note: the TNIV* does read "...neither male nor female..." in Gal 3:28)
According to www.crosswalk.com ( http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=730&version=kjv ) "Arrhen" literally means "a male".
However, the terms you highlighted ("human likeness" and "human being") in the TNIV* version of Philippians 2:5-8 have the Greek word "Anthropos".
According to www.crosswalk.com ( http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=444&version=kjv ) "Anthropos" literally means "a human being, whether male or female".
It seems to me that the TNIV* accurately translates "Anthropos" to be a refernce to "humanity". In the KJV we do know that "men/man" also can be a reference to "humanity", so I don't know what all the fuss is about using the term "humanity" or "human" as opposed to "men/man".
Furthermore, any charge that the TNIV* "blurs the lines" between male and female in Philippians 2:5-8 is removed by noting that even though the TNIV* uses the term "human being" in verse 8, it is immediately followed by the male pronoun "he" and followed shortly after that by the male pronoun "himself". That is hardly "blurring the lines".
One further comment. The Greek term "Arrhen" which literally means "a male" is used only 7 times in the entire New Testament. In EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, the TNIV* translates "Arrhen" as reference to a male -whether it be a "man" as opposed to a "woman" or a "male child".