Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God's will, both publicly and privately--behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; |
Subject: Good-bye, NIV |
Bible Note: 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 |