Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 33092 | ||
Greetings again, Steve, I believe that we must understand the subject of just what exactly "gender-inclusive" language is. "Gender-inclusive" language is language that seeks to avoid masculine terminology when the original author was referring to both sexes. I'm pretty sure that both you and I agree with this definition. Therefore, a Bible can still be considered a "gender-inclusive" version and not change the names of the different Persons of the Trinity. A 'bible' that changes the different names of the Persons of the Trinity is a 'Feminist' Version. Some feminists believe that a truly inclusive version goes beyond the author's meaning, which is bound to his culture and worldview, and reinterprets the text in order to draw out its contemporary significance. And, unfortunately, some feminist versions of the Bible go so far as compromising the names of the Persons of the Trinity. The feminist 'versions' DO compromise the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The gender inclusive versions do not make an overt effort to compromise the names of Deity. Examples of feminist versions include: An Inclusive Language Lectionary (ILL, 1983); The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (NTPI, 1995); and The Inclusive New Testament (INT, 1994). So, while you are correct that the TNIV is not a feminist version, the TNIV still remains a "gender-inclusive" or "gender-neutral" version, based upon the fact that it seeks to avoid masculine terminology when the translators perceived that the original author was referring to both sexes. However, I would say that the TNIV has gone even farther from just seeking to change a few masculine forms in the text, and evidence of this can be seen in 100 different places in the TNIV's text at http://www.cbmw.org. If you would like to view a history of the "gender-inclusive" language debate and see how it got started in the first place, then view this link, which is excellent: http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html If you have any more questions, then the following link should be most helpful: http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html If you would like to gain a perspective of the debate from the NRSV's perspective, then surf here: http://www.adoremus.org/396-ScripConfus.html And for even more on "gender-inclusive" language, here's another good article to read on the subject at Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9td/9td083.html All of the links above should help you gain an excellent perspective on the 'gender-inclusive' debate and where it stands now. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
2 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33102 | ||
Hi, Makarios; Thanks for the excellent information. I think in the larger culture, the two terms are different. Gender-inclusive language seeks to eliminate the implied exclusion of women arising from the standard use of masculine gender when no gender is intended. (After all, why not use feminine gender in such cases? Male domination, of course!) This shortcoming of English is addressed by such silliness as "s/he", "chairperson", and the TNIV's use of "they" to refer to a singel person of unspecified/irrelevant gender. Gender-neutral language, on the other hand, seeks to eliminate all references to gender and thus erase all distinctions between men and women. This is the disease infesting seminaries as described in your first link ("The Gender-Neutral Language Controversy"). God and Jesus lose their gender altogether and we end up with such neologisms as God Godself (rather than "God himself" - an example in the aforementioned article). To me, gender-neutral is a much more dangerous concept. Gender-inclusiveness doesn't have much theological significance because it addreses the characteristics a perticular language. The use of gender-neutral language, however, is an assault on the nature of God. This is a heresy that transcends languages. But it's a heresy that I don't think the TNIV is necessarily guilty of. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
3 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 33107 | ||
Greetings Steve, I do not see any difference in the two terms: "gender-inclusive" and "gender-neutral".. I believe that these new gender inclusive versions have been linked closely to the current debate over the role of women in the church and in the home. This controversy pits egalitarians, who believe that men and women should share equal leadership roles in the church and the home, against complementarians, who argue for distinct and complementing roles for men and women. Egalitarians claim that their position reflects the biblical perspective of full equality of both sexes before God. Complementarians point to biblical texts that affirm male leadership and view the issue as a culture war between those who respect the roles that God has ordained and radical feminists pushing a social agenda. I believe that this whole "gender-inclusive" issue has its roots in the women's rights movement, and I am a Complementarian who believes that the Word of God should not be changed to fit society, but society should be changed to fit the Word of God. The TNIV may not be guilty of compromising the name of God, and I have not accused the TNIV of doing this. However, there are at least 100 mistranslations, many of which I have read myself, that are included within the NT text alone of the TNIV! And at least 26 reknowned Biblical scholars agree with me that the TNIV is not suitable for use by the church. So not only does the TNIV use "gender-neutral" or inclusive language, but it goes a step further, and I call that irresponsible translation. Also, since it is so clear that the TNIV is a 'gender-neutral' or inclusive version, then that alone serves as evidence that Zondervan and the IBS totally reversed their statement in 1997 regarding any future revisions of the NIV in "gender-neutral" or inclusive language 180 degrees! Either they flat out lied to us, or they chose not to honor their promise. Also, I am still seeking answers as far as why Zondervan and IBS is planning to distribute the NIV and TNIV alongside each other, since the TNIV is not a brand new translation, but it is a revision of the NIV text (7 percent of the text was changed). Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
4 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33132 | ||
Hello, Makarios; I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the meaning and relative importance of those terms. But while we're excoriating bible publishers, I assume we should add Tyndale to the list of money-grubbing, world-loving publishers who have sold out to the feminists. The NLT is also gender-inclusive. See, for example, Matthew 7:8-9: "For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who knocks. You parents - if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead?" Not a "he", "him", or "son" in sight. And don't try to excuse their perfidy by saying it's a paraphrase. It says it's a translation. So they too have played fast and loose with God's Word. The same can be said of the Good News (TEV) too. That just leaves our hosts' publishing arm, Foundation Publications. Ooops, no; they're in bed with Zondervan to publish the NASB. Guess we'd all better start learning Aramaic. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
5 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 33140 | ||
Steve, Your post is simply not worthy of a response. Have you actually been following this thread, or will you continue to resort to sarcasm and insults? - Makarios |
||||||
6 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33188 | ||
Hi, Makarios; After re-reading my message, I find no insult to anybody and precious little sarcasm. The NLT (Tyndale) and TEV (ABS) do contain language similar to the TNIV and so should be similarly reviled. And, yes, I have been following this thread; I have found little more than sarcasm and insults in most of the responses to the publication of the TNIV. I have been observing a truly shameful attack on the motives, honesty, scholarship, and integrity of two institutions that have done a great deal of service over the years by publishing and distributing bibles and other materials throughout the world. I'm no expert on Zondervan, but I do know that in addition to the very well-respected NIV, they publish other versions and ancillary materials as well. I know they have given voice to some of the greatest contemporary Christian writers around. I know of at least one evangelical Christian university (Taylor) whose library was built in large part with a gift from Zondervan. I'm not even going to waste my time defending the International Bible Society and its work. It's one thing to oppose, protest, dislike, or boycott the TNIV. If he agreed that it distorts his word, I am sure Jesus would do the same. But Zondervan and the IBS are made up of people, many of whom I am sure love God and his Word as much as anybody on this forum. It's hard for me to imagine that Jesus would join in this forum's vicious, hateful (yes, hateful), attack on organizations and people that have served him and his church so well over so many years. And I'd guess that if he approved of the NIV 20 years ago, he wouldn't now burn it, throw it away, or hide it from his sight. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
7 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 33200 | ||
Greetings, Steve! I appreciate the fact that you have seen this discussion as a crusade to protect Zondervan's and the International Bible Society's names from being tarnished! However, nothing less than a statement or action from the organizations themselves will help us to begin to answer our questions and to begin to see these organizations in a "trusting" light again. It was much different when they came out with the NIVI. However, at that time, the NIV was (and still is) THE most popular Bible translation, and the only translation that has came the closest in usurping the supremacy of the KJV as the popular translation of choice. Evangelicals have adopted the NIV as "their own." And they have done this to a degree that no other translation has enjoyed except the KJV. When the NIVI came out, it was out of shock that they would seek to change the NIV so quickly. However, even with that in mind, I remained "silent" in that debate, since (in my mind) it was like the NRSV or the NLT coming out. And if you saw my "comparison chart" that I posted the other day, you would see that the NRSV and the NLT, among other translations, are fluent with "gender-inclusive" or "gender-neutral" language. The only translations that do not overly contain "gender-neutral" language are the "traditional" translations, such as the KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, and the original NIV. I have yet to examine the ESV and the HCSB in the case of "gender-neutral" language, but my guess is that they will prove themselves true as well. However, the announcement of the TNIV is much different. First of all, it comes only five years after Zondervan/IBS came out with a statement that they were going to abandon all plans in publishing a revised edition of the NIV containing gender-inclusive language. Evangelicals "assumed" that Zondervan/IBS "got the message" and had learned just how much we had embraced this translation, the NIV, and that it was very uniquely special and important to keep it the way it is! My friend, the reaction amongst evangelical scholars (with the introduction of the NIVI) was hardly any different than the reaction of KJV Only advocates when they are approached with an NIV. However, what evangelicals "stand for" is in much contrast to that of KJV Only advocates: Evangelicals such as myself do not see any need for "gender-inclusive" language to be introduced into the Bible. We believe that the NIV was/is exceptional just the way that it is! Has the English language really changed to the point that we must update the NIV, a translation that has only enjoyed 24 years of existance? Second of all, why release the TNIV and the NIV side by side if the NIV is so flawed and outdated? If the TNIV is really a 'revision' of the NIV, then why not cease publication of the present NIV (1984), update it, and come out with a new NIV (2002) with a new copyright? And why even attempt to do this only five years after the debacle with the NIVI? It seems very clear to me that Zondervan/IBS does not want to lose the sales of the NIV (and it would most assuredly do so if the NIV itself was given a new copyright and introduced gender-inclusive language), and it also seems clear to me that they are "playing to the crowd" by introducing the TNIV. Either way, the only "profit" I see is in the dollars. They should rest their pens and sit back to watch the NIV make its place in history, instead of jeopardizing the longevity of the NIV by somehow making themselves "untrustworthy." If the NIV is somehow "flawed", then who are we to argue? But the truth of the matter is is that the NIV is not as "flawed" as the TNIV supporters make it out to be. That is why we have taken our stance, and why we have chosen to boycott Zondervan/IBS: we believe that introducing "gender-specific" or "gender-neutral" language into the Biblical text should not be done, since the whole idea stems itself from the women's rights movement, and society should not directly effect what we put in or how we translate the Bible. Steve, unless you are a member of the board at Zondervan/IBS, then you will not be able to sufficiently answer our questions, and you will not be able to "win" this crusade by convincing us. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
8 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33205 | ||
Hi, Makarios; No crusade, just hope for a little more grace shown to people and institutions who have in the past served faithfully and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future. I think I'll go out and buy another NIV. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||