Gender Debate: SBC Pastors Denounce NIV | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Gender Debate: SBC Pastors Denounce NIV | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.

SBC does it again. These guys never stop in their blind fundamentalism.

“Southern Baptists have asked their denomination-owned retail chain to stop selling a best-selling Bible translation, saying it contains errors when it comes to language about gender.”

Advertisements

Author: DanutM

Anglican theologian. Former Director for Faith and Development Middle East and Eastern Europe Region of World Vision International

21 thoughts on “Gender Debate: SBC Pastors Denounce NIV | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction”

  1. Okay, I will trow my towel in on this (even though it is kind of .. old news, but still relevant … the reception of NIV 2011 among conservatives or evangelicals).

    My thoughts: “Who gave the NIV 2011 translation committee the right to mess with the gender-pronouns as expressed gramatically in the Word of God ?”

    Here are some links on this topic:

    * Avoid Gender Neutrality Like the Plague! Here’s Why
    http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/12/14/avoid-gender-neutrality-like-the-plague-heres-why/

    * Why the New NIV is Bad News for Lutherans
    http://cyberbrethren.com/2011/07/27/why-the-new-niv-is-bad-news-for-lutherans/

    * Major Evangelical Organization Says It Can Not Endorse the 2011 New International Version
    http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/12/02/major-evangelical-organization-says-it-can-not-endorse-the-2011-new-international-version/

    * Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Translator’s Notes
    http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/11/16/updating-the-new-international-version-of-the-bible-translators-notes/

    Like

    1. This is not about grammar (since when do we worship grammar?), but MEANING. The real issu is: did God intend to talk in these passages ONLY about MEN or about ALL human beings, men and female?

      Like

      1. which is the most FAITHFUL translation to the original texts (even tho there is not original extant texts).

        I would put my vote behind the ESV 2001 (English Standard Version), Jerusalem Bible 1966, or RSV 1952 (Revised Standard Version) Bible translations.

        You (Danut) and I know that MEN/MAN in the cultural/historical context of the Israli tribes and early Church means “mankind” and applied to both women and men.

        I have no problem talking in the modern idiom (especially in evangelism, personal testimonies, homilletics), but I do have a problem with messing with/messaging/modulating … God’s inspired Word.

        Like

      2. QUESTION: Which is the most FAITHFUL translation to the original texts (even tho there is not original extant texts) ?

        Like

      3. I look forward to your thoughts and any argumentation and outside sources to substantiate allowing gender-neutral translations of Textus Receptus and the TaNaKh.

        Please take your time with writing the post, no hurry.

        Like

  2. Danut, on a 2nd reading of this post, I guess I am in agreement with you on the forceful move of SBC to order its retail stores to stop selling NIV 2011.

    Maybe the line should read “have ORDERED their denomination-owned retail chain to stop selling”.

    The issue gets a bit more complicated since Zondervan (owned by Murdochs empire) will make it illegal and demand any further publication using NIV 1984 version. They are pretty much discontinuing the 1984 version to be replaced by the 2011 version.

    My denomination (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) has long ago made the decision to make its liturgical material ESV-only. But NIV was still being used in other publication (Concordia Publishing House, CPH.org) and by local congregations.

    The first time I was made aware of the stance/thoughts of the Southern Baptists was from a lutheran source:
    “Major Evangelical Organization Says It Can Not Endorse the 2011 New International Version”
    http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/12/02/major-evangelical-organization-says-it-can-not-endorse-the-2011-new-international-version/

    Like

  3. zicea cineva ca dumnezeu nu are gen si nu e chiar tatal lui cristos, chiar daca el este “fiul”. daca e asa, am cauta-o pe “mama” lui cristos ce ar fi trebuit sa aiba aceiasi natura, nu dar ca sa se faca inteles dumnezeu a ales o paradigma omeneasca, aceea de tata-fiu, relatia dintre acestia exprimind cel mai bine relatia dintre noi si el.

    ar fi interesant de stiut (if ever) cum de in geneza scrie ca barbatul si femeia au fost facuti amindoi dupa chipul si asemanarea lui dumnezeu. si ca “sus” nu vor mai fi deosebire intre barbat si femeie. si de ce?
    in rest ramine raspunsul dat de isus fariseilor: „Vă rătăciţi! Pentru că nu cunoaşteţi nici Scripturile, nici puterea lui Dumnezeu.“

    Like

    1. @pasareaphoenixremix

      I have no problem with the concept of God having no gender … although this is a “red herring” fallacy argument on your part. Shame for doing that.

      What is important, imho, about this post news made by Danut, is not only the heavy-handed approach of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) towards their retail stores, but maybe also the reason WHY ?

      It came to my attention that at the 2011 annual meeting of the SBC (of which I am NOT a member) is that
      the 2011 NIV translation HAS OVER 4,700 changes … majority gender neutral. By the way, the NIV 2011 is to replace and make no longer available the 1984 NIV and Today’s NIV, thus one will no longer find the 1984 NIV in a bookstore, in the near future (all commands from uncle Murdoch and His Zondervan minions).

      So, please give us a reason why we should translate, for example St. Matthew 18:35 “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (ESV) to ““This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.” (NIV 2011) ?

      Like

      1. I can see a reason. The (divine) author surely did not mean that only brothers, (but also sisters) need to be forgiven. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense.

        Like

      2. si meibi ca intre cei ce ascultau erau nu numai frati ci si surori, care aveau si ele nevoie sa ierte. dar ce pot eu sa stiu ca nu sunt autorul ala…

        danut, mi se pare mie sau cu cit mai fixa e citirea sau scrierea cu atit mai restrictiva e si interpretarea textului?

        ma scuzati dl Gabriel E. Borlean inca sunt rosu la fata de pe urma sheimii personale. n-o luati prea in serios ca si domniul are sensul humorului!

        Like

  4. “The (divine) author surely did not mean that only brothers, (but also sisters) need to be forgiven. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense.”

    :´-) Nobody disagrees here. And “most” people would understand (interpret) the word brother as brother and sister. Funny thing, doesn’t most of the world (3rd world countries, developing, and many western/industrialized) speak this way … using the masculine plural pronoun/nown to include both genders. I think (I may be wrong) that it was in the modern 20th century when we created female work titles (steward-stewardess, actor-actress, etc.). No problems here.

    The problem comes, when we take liberty to translate clear words in our own PC/modern/post-modern inclinations. It is the job of the pastor to know the original languages so the pastor can clearly expound and exeget the biblical text, and clearly bring out the nuances and explanations needed.

    It seems that for the simple reason of inclusion and democracy, we decided to add words in translation (when both genders are understood already).

    Like

    1. It seems that the implicit understanding that the masculine form in Hebrew and Greek was not sufficient to overcome the prevailing misogyny that dominates most branches of the Christian church. Maybe making them more explicit will not only make misogynes mad (and rightly so; they should be made mad), but also help everybody understand that God created us equal.

      I also have to add that these comments reflect, in my opinion and light form of word idolatry. Revelation is about ideas, not particular words, and, more importantly, about a Person, that can never be reduced to words.

      Like

  5. DanutM on 9 August 2011
    at 10:56 pm pai daca e doar frati, te poti gindi doar la barbati, dar daca e frati si surori ar fi mai larg textul si aplicatia mai larga. cind e f precis si aplicarea e mai ingusta. poate daca zicea oameni sau persoane era mai larg si nu mai disputam

    iar vinuieshti fara prietenii tai baptisti? sau vorba lui dyo, fara “prietenul” baptist…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s