Subject: NIV bible |
Bible Note: Greetings EdB, I've read many books on gender inclusive language, and I've examined the NLT (as well as many other translations) in great detail on this subject. The NLT describes itself as a "thought for thought" translation, which is a great improvement over the Living Bible, which is obviously a paraphrase. Like the NIVI and the TNIV, the NLT gives a detailed defense of its inclusive agenda in its own Preface. I, in fact, do not agree with this bent towards Bible translation, favoring the traditional Bible versions over that of inclusive language dynamic equivalent translations. In comparison to inclusive language Bible versions, traditional versions such as the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and RSV come no where near rendering the same frequency of verses 'inclusively' as do those who are known as inclusive language versions, such as the NRSV, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, CEV, NLT, NIVI, GW, NCV, and NIrV. Therefore, not only are we looking at dynamic equivalence, but we are looking at a different methodology of translation towards certain Greek nouns and pronouns in Bible translation. I believe that no change is necessary when it comes to how we translate the masculinity of certain Greek nouns and pronouns. And that is why the NLT will not win my full endorsement. Blessings to you, Makarios |