Gender-neutral Bible accused of altering message
Copies of the New International Version Bible is displayed in a book store March 17, 2011, in Nashville, Tenn. / AP Photo
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - In the old translation of the world's most popular Bible, John the Evangelist declares: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." Make that "brother or sister" in a new translation that includes more gender-neutral language and is drawing criticism from some conservatives who argue the changes can alter the theological message.
The 2011 translation of the New International Version Bible, or NIV, does not change pronouns referring to God, who remains "He" and "the Father." But it does aim to avoid using "he" or "him" as the default reference to an unspecified person.
The NIV Bible is used by many of the largest Protestant faiths. The translation comes from an independent group of biblical scholars that has been meeting yearly since 1965 to discuss advances in biblical scholarship and changes in English usage.
Before the new translation even hit stores, it drew opposition from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organization that believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church.
The council decided it would not endorse the new version because the changes alter "the theological direction and meaning of the text," according to a statement. Similar concerns led the Southern Baptist Convention to reject the NIV's previous translation in 2005.
At issue is how to translate pronouns that apply to both genders in the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts but have traditionally been translated using masculine forms in English.
An example from the translator's notes for Mark 4:25 to show how the NIV's translation of these words has evolved over the past quarter-century.
The widely distributed 1984 version of the NIV quotes Jesus: "Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."
The more recent incarnation of the NIV from 2005, called Today's New International Version, changed that to: "Those who have will be given more; as for those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them."
The CBMW had complained in 2005 that making the subject of a verse plural to convey that it could refer equally to a man or a woman "potentially obscured an important aspect of biblical thought — that of the personal relationship between an individual and God."
While the translators' former grammar teachers may not like it, the translators offer a strong justification for their choice of "they" (instead of the clunky "he or she") and "them" (instead of "him or her") to refer back to the singular "whoever."
They commissioned an extensive study of the way modern English writers and speakers convey gender inclusiveness. According to the translators' notes on the Committee on Bible Translation's website, "The gender-neutral pronoun 'they' ('them'/'their') is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents such as 'whoever,' 'anyone,' 'somebody,' 'a person,' 'no one,' and the like."
Randy Stinson, president of the CBMW and dean of the School of Church Ministries at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the changes are especially important to evangelicals.
"Evangelicals believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture. We believe every word is inspired by God, not just the broad thought," he said.
So if the original text reads "brothers" — even if that word in the original language is known to mean "brothers and sisters" (such as the Hebrew "achim" or Spanish word "hermanos") — many evangelicals believe the English translation should read "brothers."
Stinson said a notes section would be the best place to point out that the original word could be read to include men and women.
It's not yet known if the Southern Baptist Convention will reject the new translation the way it did the 2005 version. The nation's largest Protestant denomination still sells the 1984 translation in its stores. If it chooses to condemn the new version, that would happen at its national convention in June.
The publisher says the NIV 2011 will replace both the 1984 and 2005 versions.
Even while panning the new translation, the CBMW thanked the Committee on Bible Translation for being open about the process they used to develop it. That included taking comments from all sides of the gender debate.
And the new version doesn't always use gender neutral language. It takes reader sensibility into account by not using inclusive terms for some of the most familiar verses where that might sound jarring. For instance, Matthew 4:4 is rendered, "'Man shall not live on bread alone."
That's a change from the TNIV, where the same phase read, "People do not live on bread alone."
"I think that clause has entered into standard English," translator Douglas Moo explained of the move back to the more traditional "man." "People know it who don't know the Bible."
Moo said the translators hope that the phrasing of the new NIV is so natural that the average reader won't be aware of any of the gender language concerns that are debated by biblical scholars and linguists.
The group's website says its goal is "to articulate God's unchanging Word in the way the original authors might have said it if they had been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today."
While the change to the generic "man" in verses like Matthew 4:4 is applauded by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, linguist Joel M. Hoffman, author of "And God Said — How Translations Conceal the Bible's Original Meaning," said it is simply incorrect.
"'Anthropos' (the Greek word in the original text) means 'person,' plain and simple," he said. "It's as much a mistake as translating 'parent' as 'father."'
He doesn't buy the argument that "man" is understood in English to refer to men and women.
"If you walk into a church on Sunday morning and say, 'Will every man stand up?' I would be shocked if the women stood up, too."
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Massive tornado hits Okla. 63 Photos
- Children rescued from elementary school in Okla. 11 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado leaves dozens dead, including many children 88 Comments
- Oklahoma tornado carves trail of destruction Play Video
- Severe tornado tears through Oklahoma City suburb Play Video
- Oklahoma tornado as seen by storm chasers Play Video
- At least 51 dead after massive Okla. tornado 94 Comments
- Mile-wide tornado rips through Oklahoma City area
1) how do people know god is a man ? do people believe this because it's in a book ?
2) if god created people in his own image how do we know he isn't black , white or hispanic ??
3 ) who wrote the bible ??
4) what if this turns out to be a fable ??
5) why are the church so against any that challendes their belief ??
i think that people are always looking if there is a god or not. i think we need to prove that there is a hell or the devil . if we find this out then it would prove whether god exist or not
2) We don't? Does shiney and transparent count as a skin color cause I think you forgot to include that =P We believe in the bible and the bible doesn't define his skin color so we don't know it. Where did you get the idea that we did?
3) Read it and find out. =P Many times books are authored. If not you can do a tiny bit of research and find out for yourself. would you like me to google that for you?
4) gooodluck proving it either way for it is impossible.
5) why do you generalize church so much? I welcome any challendes(not exactly sure what those are) as well challenges to my faith please feel free to ask some harder questions. Finally, if you want to find out about heaven hell the fast way would always die. Short of that, it is pretty much impossible to know for certainty that it exists or does not exist. This is just the same as any scientific law or theory. As for the vast majority of life, we base our beliefs on faith(that which we cannot prove). Religion/science are no different. Math is really the only thing you can "prove" something %100 because the concepts are built by definitions rather than as a result of experimental testing.
====
But the original text does not read "brothers". It has a word that was mistranslated long ago to read "brothers". The translations should have read "brothers and sisters" all along.
Of course there is a controversy in making the Bible more progressive/accepting. This bronze age piece of fiction, which actively contradicts itself, is just a tool to distract and dull the minds of those who read it, while those in charge (still mostly religious) reap the benefits.
Read science. Science is the poetry of reality. Open your eyes, everybody ...
You religiously accept scientific views as fact. You then use these "facts" as roadmap for your existence and thus defy the very purpose of science. Someone who is truly a scientist is truly subjective and thus does not believe and base his life off of that which can not be fully proven. By its very definition, science is not a method to prove but a method to come up with the most likely explanation for a given observation. This is otherwise known as the scientific method.
As for bible religion dulling socitey... heh,I challenge you, oh highly intelligent scientific one, to state biblical principles that hinder scientific expansion and society progression. The very basis of morals is such that society can exist and prosper. Lying degrades society, Killing degrades society, and the desolution of the family degrades society...ect It is far more productive and beneficial for a society to take on biblical religious morals than Religious "Scientists" philosophies such as "Survival of the fittest". For it is only by working together that we progress as opposed to fighting for dominance.
Anyhow, by the backs of atheists and Christians alike scientific theories were postulated and our modern science has been developed. To foolishly discredit either side would be unwise and arrogant.
One cannot "read science" as they can the bible. However both are valuable to study.
Make it whatever you want, it's still "true"......