Three years too late, I’m running into this\u00a0controversy that is now starting to hit our shores.<\/p>\n
In 1984 the International Bible Society published a new English translation of the Bible: the New International Version, NIV1984.\u00a0 This was welcome, not only because few English speakers are conversant in Hebrew and first century Greek, but because in many ways this translation proved readable, while managing to represent the original language fairly fully. \u00a0The NIV1984 plots a course midway between overly interpretive translation, and the stilted language of overly literal translations. \u00a0It reads well. \u00a0It’s good English. \u00a0(Well, it reads mostly well: they did invent a term, which went down very poorly – instead of “flesh”, they used “sinful nature” – an abstract term to replace a concrete term, which was not a good choice.)<\/p>\n
In 2005, having merged with another organisation and become “Biblica”, they published a new edition, the TNIV. \u00a0This edition was widely rejected and flopped. \u00a0And in 2011, they made a number of revisions to the TNIV, and published it as the NIV. \u00a0The packaging of this NIV of 2011 is the same as the original NIV of 1984. \u00a0And more recently, they withdrew publishing rights for the NIV1984, so\u00a0if you find a NIV1984 for sale today you can be sure that you won’t find it next year. \u00a0Soon you won’t get it anywhere except in\u00a0Skunkware phone\u00a0apps.<\/p>\n
The NIV1984 translation\u00a0has 350 million copies in print. \u00a0It’s fair to say that there is significant interest in it. \u00a0For 20 years it has been read, spoken about and\u00a0memorised. \u00a0This is a big deal, because the NIV2011 is a different animal.<\/p>\n
Now there’s a problem here – while the packaging is the same, and the name is the same, the content of the NIV2011 is not the same as the NIV1984. \u00a0They are selling the sweepings as wheat, it’s marked as NIV, but it is not.<\/p>\n
Instead of proper English, we are treated to sentences like<\/p>\n
Anyone<\/strong> who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work<\/strong>, doing something useful with their<\/strong> own hands, that they<\/strong> may have something to share with those in need.\u00a0(NIV2011)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One<\/strong> must work with their<\/strong> hands? \u00a0How many people have these hands? \u00a0Why is this change made? \u00a0It is to avoid “he” and “him”:<\/p>\n
He<\/strong> who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his<\/strong> own hands, that he<\/strong> may have something to share with those in need.\u00a0\u00a0(NIV1984)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The NIV2011 rendition\u00a0doesn’t apply to anyone in particular. \u00a0The NIV1984\u00a0applies to a specific man: a thief. \u00a0(If women thieves believe they are excused, all the best to them.) \u00a0A woman\u00a0may well believe she is\u00a0excused in the first version though, because anyone<\/em> can tell you that if something applies to anyone<\/em>, it applies just as well to no-one. \u00a0I don’t know that you will actually find anyone<\/em> to tell you that – it’s all hypothetical when you don’t say “man”.<\/p>\n
Now there is a fair bit of bad English going about, and some people do think that they and their are as good as him and his, but this is not the reason that there has been a search and replace job done on the text. \u00a0From the extent of the changes and what was targeted for changing it is clear that men<\/strong>, fathers<\/strong>, brothers<\/strong> and anything male are targets for elimination. \u00a0Eliminating maleness may agree with the spirit of the age, but it does not accurately reflect the text that the NIV2011 claims to translate into English. \u00a0Works of fiction have their own aisle.<\/p>\n
One of the\u00a0great things about the internet is that it is trivial to see how this text is translated in other languages – it’s very male:<\/p>\n
\n
- Que celui<\/strong> qui volait cesse de voler; qu’il<\/strong> se donne plut\u00f4t la peine de travailler honn\u00eatement de ses propres mains pour avoir de quoi donner \u00e0 celui<\/strong> qui est dans le besoin.<\/span><\/li>\n
- Wer<\/strong> bisher ein<\/strong> Dieb gewesen ist, soll aufh\u00f6ren zu stehlen und soll stattdessen einer n\u00fctzlichen Besch\u00e4ftigung nachgehen, bei der er<\/strong> seinen Lebensunterhalt mit Flei\u00df und Anstrengung durch eigene Arbeit verdient<\/span>; dann kann er<\/strong> sogar noch denen etwas abgeben, die in Not sind.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This was a pretty random sample. \u00a0What they did to Psalm 1 was awful. \u00a0Psalm 8 they removed the important part, so it makes no sense. \u00a0The creative headline in Matthew 1 (“Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son”) was absolutely beyond belief.<\/p>\n
So, I’ve said it poorly, this NIV2011 is bad. \u00a0Others have said it better:<\/p>\n
\n
- http:\/\/www.slowley.com\/niv2011_comparison\/<\/a>\u00a0– a comprehensive list of changes – the NIV2011 is clearly derived from the\u00a0TNIV, and not the NIV1984 which it claims to replace. \u00a0Everyone agrees on this part. \u00a0Thanks Robert.<\/li>\n
- http:\/\/donteatthefruit.com\/2010\/11\/niv-2011-every-last-change\/<\/a>\u00a0– a nice tag cloud, so you can see what’s in\u00a0and what’s out. \u00a0They are in, and he is out.<\/li>\n
- http:\/\/www.bible-researcher.com\/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf<\/a>\u00a0– the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s analysis of the problem<\/li>\n
- http:\/\/archive.constantcontact.com\/fs018\/1102797716062\/archive\/1104842697260.html<\/a>\u00a0–\u00a0this man is not impressed<\/li>\n
- http:\/\/unlockingfemininity.wordpress.com\/2011\/08\/09\/words-matter-why-we-cant-recommend-the-niv-2011-2\/<\/a>\u00a0– it was supposed to make women happy, but it doesn’t.<\/li>\n
- http:\/\/www.sbc.net\/resolutions\/amResolution.asp?ID=1218<\/a> – The Southern Baptists rejected the NIV 2011, over the objections of their learned theological men.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This post was meant to be vitriolic, so I will now plagiarise someone else’s vitriol on the matter (you can find it on your favourite search engine<\/a>):<\/p>\n
The NIV 2011 is evil, catering to the homosexual agenda (which seeks to make men effeminate). By watering down and diminishing the masculinity of the Word of God in the NIV 2011, the Committee on Biblical Translation (CBT) has actually produced an effeminate and feminist Bible of the Devil.<\/em><\/p>\n
Fiddling about with gender language is not without effect. \u00a0I am growing weary of losing friends to this evil cause.<\/p>\n
A word of moderation after the vitriol:\u00a0if this is the only Bible you have, read it. \u00a0If you have another, read that rather.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Three years too late, I’m running into this\u00a0controversy that is now starting to hit our shores. In 1984 the International Bible Society published a new English translation of the Bible: the New International Version, NIV1984.\u00a0 This was welcome, not only … Continue reading