[The Iguana]

I have always had a problem with the NIV. I was reading it and the King James(cross-referencing) the story of Philip and the Eunuch. In the NIV text, they left out a whole verse, the one about the Eunuch being baptized. I checked other NIV editions and found that these editions also left out the verse...so it was not just my bible. In Revelations we are instructed not to add to or take away from the good book.

I think you're actually referring to Matthew 5:18...

As a famous Italian once observed , to "translate is to betray." In a sense no translation can ever perfectly capture what is said. But I don't think that is what Matthew is referring to.

As Dr. Gregory Vall has shown, inclusive translations such as that of the NRSV actually obscure the pro-feminine dimension of passages like Galkatians 3:23-4:7. "For if inclusive language fails to convey the dignity of women even when that is the author's point, how will it succeed elsewhere?" ("Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men iN Christ," The Thomist 67 (2003)).

For this reason and others inclusive language glosses are highly problematic. I applaud LifeWay and the SBC for taking a stand against it.

[EmilyGeiger]

No, the verse I was speaking of is Acts 8:38,39. But I also am pleased with Lifeway's decision. Just as society is trying water down morality, they will do so by watering down the bible.