the niv gender agenda - clover sitesstorage.cloversites.com/canyonlakecommunitychurch... · the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The NIV Gender Agenda (A Reason for Switching Bible
Translations)
by
Pastor Thor Ramsey
At some point (exactly 1979), somebody at the
National Weather Bureau thought it would be a good idea to
stop naming hurricanes after women. You know? Hurricane
Carol! Hurricane Katrina! The practice smacked of sexism.
(Unless you happened to encounter my mother after getting
mud on her carpeting! Hurricane Emily! That’s just accuracy.)
So, the meteorologists started including men and now we have
Hurricane Hugo and Hurricane Floyd, the difference being
that men take it as a compliment. Men find it flattering to be
known as wild and destructive. Keep up the good work,
Weather Bureau.
Granted, it’s good and courteous to adjust our
language to avoid needlessly offending in such matters, but
people can get a little ridiculous about it. Such is the case with
personal pronoun “he.” There have always been pockets of the
English speaking world who replace the singular pronoun “he”
with the plural pronoun “they,” though “they” use it with a
singular meaning. This often leads to wonderful sentences
2
like, “I see my boyfriend. They are coming this way.” Really?
Maybe he should date someone who can talk gooder. The
question is, “What happens when we apply this same gender-
neutral logic to translating the ancient texts of the Bible?”
My first Bible was a New American Standard Bible
which is a translation that was based upon the King James
Bible. I tried memorizing Scripture from that version and
failed miserably. The translation of this version, clunky in
style, was often difficult, through my wits, to place in my
mind. In other words, it was hard to memorize. The version
that facilitated Scripture memorization for me was the NIV
(New International Version) Bible. It was the 1984 version of
the NIV (henceforth known as the NIV84) and it became the
Bible I used regularly since 1994. When I bought a new NIV in
2011 (henceforth known as the NIV11), little did I know that
the translation had changed. (I should have read the preface!
But who expects their Bible to say, “New and improved?”) The
fact that the translation of the NIV had changed came to my
attention when the new Bible I read aloud from during
sermons did not match the text on the screen at times
(something I couldn’t blame on a PC). It turns out the media
department was placing the NIV84 on the screen while I was
reading from the NIV11, thus the discrepancies in wording.
That was a minor problem compared to other issues I
would soon find with this revised translation. Soon, I came
3
across a problematic NIV11 translation choice while preparing
a message from the book of Acts.
The Difference between Translating and Interpreting
In Acts chapter 6, there is controversy in the church
because a group of widows is being overlooked in the daily
distribution of food. So, the disciples gathered together the
believers and told them, “It would not be right for us to
neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on
tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among
you…”
In the Hellenistic Greek text the word is ἀδελφός
(adelphos) and it means “brothers” or “fellow believers,”
sometimes “fellow Jews” and “fellow countrymen.” The
translators of the NIV11 vaulted over pastors, teachers and
readers by opting to translate it “brothers and sisters.” This
was not just a translation decision. It was also one of
interpretation. The translators of the NIV11 decided the
author meant to address both men and women. The reason
this matters is because there is a clear leadership issue at play
in Acts 6 and the translators of the NIV11 don’t give us the
opportunity to grapple with this text in light of other passages
regarding the roles of men and women in the church. They
4
just make the leap to egalitarian1 church leadership for all of
us by translating it “brothers and sisters.” Look, I’m all for
inclusive language (except when it comes to hurricanes). The
question becomes one of extent. In this case (as in many
others), the translators overstep their boundaries and
interpret rather than translate.
This led me to investigate what other changes had
been made, because some of the discrepancies between the
NIV84 (which is no longer sold) and the NIV11 troubled the
Executive Leadership Team (Pastor Pete, Dave Dick and
myself) here at the church. I discovered that there are 2,766
translation choices like this made in the NIV11 and the vast
majority of them are related to gender. Not much of a
conspiracy theorist myself, but this certainly hints of a gender
agenda to me. The more I investigated the changes made to
the NIV11, the more it went from hinting to smacking of a
gender agenda. Not that they had one, of course. Their Bible
translation just reads that way.
Essentially Literal versus Essentially Not
From the outset, the NIV was a “thought-for-thought”
translation rather than a “word-for-word” translation, though
all translations fluctuate somewhat between these two types,
1 In egalitarian church leadership models women can also be senior pastors.
5
because as any respectable New Testament Greek primer will
tell you, “There is no single Greek word that has an exact
equivalent in a single English word.”2
In predominately thought-for-thought translations
the team of translators is more inclined to superimpose their
own opinions onto the text. (That’s my opinion, anyway.) In
the case of the NIV11, that opinion specifically has to do with
cultural views of gender roles. Rather than simply translating
the text and allowing readers to wrestle with applying the
meaning of a given text to our present cultural context in light
of all the biblical texts, the translator’s of the NIV11 have taken
an interpretive leap over the readers. Intentionally or
unintentionally, that is the end result. Let’s look at just a
couple of these changes as they each reveal an agenda-driven
translation of the Bible. Or at least a translation of the Bible
that is more concerned about cultural sensibilities than
accurate meaning.
For example, the NIV11 translates Nahum 3:13 as
follows, “Look at your troops -- they are all weaklings. The
gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has
consumed the bars of your gates.” The ESV (English Standard
Version) Bible translates the same verse, “Behold, your troops
2 Ernest Cadman Colwell, A Beginner’s Reader-Grammar for New Testament Greek (Harper & Row, 1965), pg 12.
6
are women in your midst. The gates of your land are wide
open to your enemies; fire has devoured your bars.”
The key word change here is “women.” A report from
the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood explains,
“In each of these four verses the Hebrew word is nashim, the
plural of ’ishshah and the ordinary, common word for
―women (it is not a rare word, and there is no debate or
uncertainty over its meaning, for ’ishshah occurs 847 times in
the Old Testament). But in these verses related to military
combat, the new NIV has removed the correct translation
―women and replaced it with ―weaklings. The word does not
mean that. Perhaps some people think that is what these
verses imply, but that is not what they say. Perhaps the verses
also suggest shame that any people would allow their women
to serve in combat, or shame that all the men have been
defeated and only women are left to defend a nation. In any
case, the point is that even the original Hebrew readers would
have had to ponder for a moment what the verse meant when
it said the troops had become women. It is not proper
translation to hide from the English readers the fact that the
Bible said in these verses that some troops had become
women.”3
In a Lutheran position paper I came across, it was
stated in their synod’s research: “The NIV 2011 removes from
3 An Evaluation of Gender Language in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible, pgs. 20-21
7
Scripture the fact that Israelite priests were male, that
Israelite high priests were male, that Israelite gatekeepers
were male, that Israelite leaders meeting with Moses were
male, that Israelite soldiers were male, that David’s Mighty
Men were male, and that the prophets who wrote Scripture
were male. The Holy Spirit chose to put the detail that these
people were male into these passages. How can we choose to
remove details that God chose to include?”4 That’s a very good
question.
Is the Bible About Jesus or Us?
Here’s another example of what amounts to a basic
masking of masculine phraseology, which completely changes
the possible meaning of Psalm 8. This is one of the most
troubling examples to me. Below is a chart that shows how the
NIV84 originally translated these verses compared to the
changes they made in current NIV11.
Psalm 8:4-5
NIV84 NIV11
What is man that you are
mindful of him,
What is mankind that you
are mindful of them,
4 The NIV 2011: Problems Caused by its Improper Use of Gender Neutral Language, pg. 7.
8
the son of man that you care
for him?
5You made him a little lower
than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory
and honor.
human beings that you care
for them?a
5You have made them a little
lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory
and honor.
The issue I have with the NIV11 version of Psalm 8 is
that even though “son of man” is a term which does refer to
humanity, “son of man” is a specific way of calling us human
in the Hebrew language. In this case, the translators of the
NIV11 switch from the singular “what is man that you are
mindful of him” to the plural “what is mankind that you are
mindful of them.” Then they carry this through the rest of the
Psalm, which changes “him” to “them.”
Now, why is that important? Because the author of
Hebrews says that Psalm 8 is actually talking about Jesus.
Using the plural “them” instead of the singular “he” takes
away from the messianic emphasis of Psalm 8. The gender-
inclusive translation of Psalm 8 changes it from being
primarily a prophecy about Jesus to being primarily a text
about humanity. Was it really necessary to make this change?
Did they really do it to make the Bible more understandable?
9
Or did they do it because they want the Bible to be more
gender-inclusive? Now, of course, we can’t know their true
motives, but anything that makes the Bible less about Jesus
and more about us isn’t a good decision. Psalm 8 is clearly
about Jesus, until it is rendered gender-inclusive.
The translators have given their reason for making
this change, but the reasoning behind this choice baffles me to
no end. I read that this giant team of translators decided that
Psalm 8 isn’t directly messianic. We only believe this passage
is messianic because the New Testament tells us that. What?
The translators make the argument that if we only had Psalm
8, we wouldn’t suspect it was messianic. The point is we don’t
only have Psalm 8. We have the author of Hebrews, too. I
thought one of the basic rules of biblical interpretation was to
interpret a verse in light of all other Scripture. So, because it’s
not obvious to the translators, they decided to override the
viewpoint of the New Testament? You’re fired! This is another
case of the translators interpreting rather than translating.
Below is where the New Testament author of Hebrews
tells us that Psalm 8 is messianic. You can see in this chart
how the NIV11 translators decided to change it.
10
Hebrews 2:6-9
NIV84 NIV11
But there is a place where
someone has testified:
"What is man that you are
mindful of him,
the son of man that you care
for him?
7You made him a little lower
than the angels;
you crowned him with glory
and honor
8and put everything under
his feet."
In putting everything under
him, God left nothing that is
not subject to him. Yet at
present we do not see
everything subject to
him.9But we see Jesus, who
was made a little lower than
the angels, now crowned
with glory and honor
But there is a place where
someone has testified:
"What is mankind that you
are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care
for him?
7You made them a little lower
than the angels;
you crowned them with glory
and honor
8and put everything under
their feet."b
In putting everything under
them, God left nothing that
is not subject to them. Yet at
present we do not see
everything subject to
them.9But we do see Jesus,
who was made lower than
the angels for a little while,
now crowned with glory and
11
because he suffered death, so
that by the grace of God he
might taste death for
everyone.
honor because he suffered
death, so that by the grace of
God he might taste death for
everyone.
Jesus often referred to Himself as the “Son of Man,”
so losing that phrase in Psalm 8 in the Old Testament loses
the connection to Jesus in the New Testament, even though
the writer of Hebrews (my money’s on the Holy Spirit) makes
that connection. The NIV11 has dropped “son of man” in four
other Old Testament verses, also.
The issue clearly seems to be the fear of offending
people in today’s modern culture with gender-specific words
like “he, him, son, father and brother.” You know? Words like
man. It appears the translators have attempted to help God
communicate in a less offensive way to people sensitive to
masculine language choices. (I guess scribes always want to
help improve the Bible, no matter the era.)
What Bible Then?
The thing that’s disappointing is that the NIV is such a
thoroughly readable Bible. But that’s always been the issue
with the NIV. It has always been a great reading Bible. It’s just
12
never been a great preaching Bible. Still, I like some of the
changes in the NIV11, such as translating “aliens” as
“foreigners.” I think that’s a better communication choice.
Switching back to the word “flesh” rather than interpreting it
for us as “sinful nature” was a great choice, since that’s what
the Apostle Paul wrote. (Unfortunately, I preached from
Galatians with the NIV84!) However, as Dr. William Combs
points out, “Any genuine improvements to the NIV were
completely overshadowed by the controversy involving the
TNIV’s use of gender-inclusive language.”5
The main problem I have with the NIV11 is that it is a
rehash of the Bible that Zondervan put out in 2005, Today’s
New International Version (henceforth known as the TNIV).
The explicit purpose of the TNIV was to focus on gender-
neutral language. It was a marketing disaster and a
commercial dud. Unfortunately, NIV11 retains 70% of the
TNIV translation choices6, but the cover doesn’t say that. The
cover doesn’t even say NIV 2011. It just says NIV. So,
naturally, most schlubs like myself think we’re buying the
same Bible when we buy an NIV. We just thought we were
getting a new one. (Oh, we got a new one all right!) Given that
the NIV84 is no longer available for purchase, we feel the
publishers of the NIV11 (Zondervan) give us no option but to
5 William A. Combs, The History of the NIV Translation Controversy, pg. 25-26 6 An Evaluation of Gender Language in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible, pg. 23.
13
look for a different translation of the Bible to use during
Sunday services.
If you feel like we’re being a little unfair to the NIV11,
please consider this quote from one of the most respected
nationally known pastors in the country, scholar and pastor
John Piper, who said, “The NIV is the best-selling modern
translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in
print. The NIV makes up about 30% of all Bible sales. Among
evangelicals the percentage would be far above 30% and it is
probably the Bible most evangelicals read most often. And the
one most pastors use in preaching. Why am I not on board?
Not only am I not on board. I would be happy to see the NIV
sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the
standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-
speaking church… I have longed that there be something more
readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The
NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and
so much interpretation that I could not preach from it.”
The question now becomes, “If we switch translations,
what other translation should we choose?” There are several
good Bible translations out there. (Well, two or three anyway.)
The New American Standard Version is a very good essentially
literal translation, but it’s worded very awkwardly. The King
James Version (though loved by many) was not translated
from the best manuscript evidence available today. (Oddly,
14
when the KJV originally came out it was criticized as being too
easy to read. Now some think it’s superior because it’s hard to
read.)7 There is the Holman Standard Christian Version, but
it’s primarily used by one denomination, though it is a
denomination we love. It is also less literal than the English
Standard Version and seems to lose some of the richness of
the original languages.
After reviewing all the options, we feel like the English
Standard Version (henceforth known as the ESV) fits the bill
of readability and accuracy, which is the goal of any good
translation of the Bible. This is the version we (the ELT) have
decided to use during Sunday services. It’s trusted by leaders
we trust, such as the aforementioned John Piper, but it is also
endorsed by Francis Chan, David Platt, Kevin DeYoung, Matt
Chandler, Mark Driscoll, Wayne Grudem, R.C. Sproul, etc. We
think it is just as readable as the NIV, but the ESV is a more
accurate Bible, coming from the philosophy of the essentially
word-for-word translations. Now, keep in mind, we’re not
saying this is the only translation of the Bible to use, but it will
be the version we preach from on Sunday mornings.
Below you can find a comparison chart between the
NIV11 and the ESV to analyze readability.
7 I forget who said this, but you’ll find this quote somewhere in the recommended material at the end.
15
Psalm 95
ESV NIV11
1Oh come, let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation!
2 Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving; let us make a joyful noise to him with songs of praise! p
3 For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
4 In his hand are the depths of the earth; the heights of the mountains are his also.
1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
2 Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song.
3 For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.
4 In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him.
As you can see, the ESV is a very readable translation.
It is an essentially word-for-word translation that doesn’t
interpret the Bible before we get a chance to wrestle and pray
over the passages. Pastor Kevin DeYoung lists seven good
16
reasons for using the ESV in his little booklet, Why Our
Church Switched to the ESV:
1. The ESV employs an “essentially literal”
translation philosophy.
2. The ESV doesn’t interpret the text for us.
3. The ESV doesn’t add unnecessary words to
the text.
4. The ESV doesn’t avoid theological terms in
the text, such as “propitiation.”
5. The ESV translates words more consistently.
6. The ESV retains more of the literary qualities
of the Bible.
7. The ESV requires much less “correcting” in
preaching.
These are just some of the reasons we have decided to
employ the English Standard Version of the Bible at Canyon
Lake Community Church. To help you with this adjustment,
we have provided paperback versions of the ESV as pew
Bibles. This way you can familiarize yourself with it. When you
feel comfortable, we’d encourage you to go out and purchase a
new ESV (English Standard Version) Bible because this is the
version we will be reading from the pulpit.
Thank you, brothers and sisters (author’s original
intent).
17
For further reading, consider these original sources:
http://www.goodshepherds.net/home/180005716/18
0005716/180084989/NIV%202011%20Bergemann%20.pdf
http://www.waynegrudem.com/an-evaluation-of-
gender-language-in-the-2011-edition-of-the-niv-bible/
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2012/NIVCombs.pdf
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-
library/articles/good-english-with-minimal-translation-why-
bethlehem-uses-the-esv
http://static.crossway.org/excerpt/why-our-church-
switched-to-the-esv/why-our-church-switched-to-the-esv.pdf