Gender Inclusive Modern Versions - Today's New International Version and others.
It is so ironic that there are now many Christian groups who are up in arms about the Today's New International Version because of its perceived "gender inclusive" language, and yet they continue to promote the old NIV, the NASB, ESV and the NKJV as though these were "reliable translations" worthy of our reverence. This is a clear case of the blind leading the blind.
Brother Scott Jones, who is a strong defender of the King James Bible, has noted the following.
(Quotes by Scott Jones) "When modern bibles such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, et al, remove Jesus Christ as the Creator in Ephesians 3:9, remove Jesus Christ as the Sovereign in John 3:13, remove Jesus Christ as GOD Incarnate in 1 Timothy 3:16, remove Jesus Christ as Jehovah Incarnate in 1 Corinthians 10:9, ad infinitum, they don't say a word. Not a whisper.
But when the feminism movement pops its head, the hypocrites go berserk. Regarding the new gender inclusive TNIV that the hypocrites are suddenly so vocal about, the party-line spreads its deceitful wings. Falwell speaks for a whole host of his cronies who have come out against the TNIV. Observe -
"Mr. Stinson says this is "problematic" because the Greek word "aner" is translated as "some," when this is a specific word THAT CAN ONLY MEAN MEN." (End of quotes by Scott Jones - emphasis added)
I completely agree with brother Scott Jones on this. Following are some examples of this hypocricy, irony and spiritual blindness on the part of many Christian leaders.
Here is one example of a site that objects to the TNIV and yet promotes the use of the NIV.
Short list of examples of changes made from the NIV to the TNIV
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
NIV Acts 20:30 Even from your own number MEN will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
TNIV Acts 20:30 Even from your own number SOME will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away the disciples after them.
They then Comment: "Paul no longer says that "men" will arise from among the elders of the church at Ephesus, but "some" will arise, suggesting that there could be women elders at Ephesus. Mistranslates the Greek word aner, which means a male human being (this is not the word anthropos, which often means "person").
(Note on Greek aner: Greek scholars for hundreds of years have known that aner means "man" not "person." Recently, with no new evidence, but under cultural pressure, some have discovered a new meaning, "person." But with no compelling evidence, the TNIV translates aner in a gender-neutral way 31 times.)
NIV Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "MEN of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious."
TNIV Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Aeropagus and said: PEOPLE of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious."
They again Comment: "Suggests that there were women debating on the Aeropagus. Mistranslates Greek aner, "men." (End of this portion of the article opposing the use of the TNIV)
This is so hypocritical. It is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Let's look at some examples of the 'old' NIV and see how it has translated or not this same word aner- man/men.
By the way, now that the "New" New International Version of 2011 has come out, they have gotten even worse. In the new NIV 2011 Acts 17:22 now reads like the old TNIV and says: "PEOPLE of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious."
Now, let's look at some more examples. We will compare the 1982 edition of the NIV with the Authorized King James Bible.
Matthew 15:38 "they that did eat were 4000 men" - NIV 1982 - "were 4000" (omits men altogether)
Luke 1:34 "I know not a man" NIV 1982 and 2011- "since I am a virgin"
Acts 1:16; 2:29; 2:37; 7:2; 13:15; 13:26; 13:38; 15:7; 15:13; 23:1; 23:6; 28:17 - ανδρες αδελφοι
All of these verses say "Men and brethren" = ανδρες αδελφοι in the KJB, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Young's 'literal' translation, the Douay Rheims, Webster's 1833 translation, Montgomery's New Testament, the Third Millenium Bible, the KJB 21, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Reina Valera and the NKJV.
However the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Dan Wallace's NET version omit the word 'men' and just say "Brothers".
Acts 2:5 "Jews, devout men" - NIV 1982, 2011 - "God fearing Jews"
Acts 2:14 "Ye men of Judea" - NIV 1982, 2011 - "Fellow Jews"
Acts 8:27 "Behold, a man of Ethiopia" - NIV 1982, 2011, ESV - "an Ethiopian"
Acts 10:28 "unlawful for a man that is a Jew" NIV 1982, 2011, ESV - "a Jew"
Acts 13:21 "a man of the tribe of Benjamin" NIV 1982, 2011 - " of the tribe of Benjamin" (omits man)
Acts 21:11 "bind the man that owneth this girdle" NIV 1982, 2011 - "bind the owner of this belt"
Acts 22:3 "I am verily a man which am a Jew" NIV 1982, 2011, ESV - "I am a Jew"
Acts 23:21 "more than 40 men" - NIV 1982, 2011 - "more than 40 of them"
Romans 11:4 "I have reserved to myself 7000 men" - NIV 1982, 2011 - "7000" (omits men)
Ephesians 4:13 "unto a perfect man" NIV 1982, 2011 - "become mature"
Another generic term being introduced into the modern versions is the word HUMAN, or HUMAN BEING. This is a gender inclusive term. The word "human" is not found in the King James Bible at all. However in the NKJV we find the word "human" 15 times, in the NASB it occurs 37 times, in the old NIV 50 times and in the ESV a whopping 65 times!
Just a few of the 65 times the ESV has "HUMAN" instead of "man, or men" see Psalm 115:4; 135:15; Isaiah 13:7; 44:11; 52:14; Ezekiel 1:5; Daniel 2:34, 45; 5:5; 8:25; Matthew 24:22, John 16:21; Acts 17:25; Romans 2:9; 3:5 and 20; 1 Corinthians 1:29; 2:13; 3:3 and 4.
Here are just a few examples comparing the KJB with the NKJV and the ESV.
Leviticus 7:21 "the uncleanness of a man" - NKJV, ESV - "HUMAN uncleanness"
2 Kings 7:10 "there was no MAN there, neither voice of MAN" - NKJV - "no ONE there (ESV), not a HUMAN sound"
Ezekiel 4:15 "cow's dung for man's dung" - NKJV, ESV - "cow's dung instead of HUMAN waste"
John 16:21 "for joy that a man is born into the world" - NKJV, ESV "a HUMAN being has been born"
Romans 6:19 "I speak after the manner of men" - NKJV, ESV - "I speak in HUMAN terms"
I Cor. 2:4 "not with enticing words of man's wisdom" - NKJV "words of HUMAN wisdom", ESV omits "man's"
Hebrews 12:9 "we have had fathers of our flesh" - NKJV - "we have had HUMAN fathers"
Again, the word 'human' is found zero times in the KJB, 15 in the NKJV, 37 in the NASB, 50 times in the NIV and 65 times in the ESV.
Another gender neutral term is the New Age/ Hindu term "the One" used to refer to God. The One is a neutral, sexless term. The King James Bible never refers to God simply as "the One" but rather as He. The Greek is masculine yet the NKJV uses the term 'the One" 14 times in the New Testament alone.
Just a couple of examples here will suffice.
John 7:18 "but he that seeketh HIS glory that sent him, the same is true" - NKJV -"He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true"
Hebrews 8:3 "it is of necessity that this man have somewhat to offer" - NKJV - "it is necessary that this One also have something to offer".
Revelation 11:17 "We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come" - NKJV - "O Lord God Almight, the One who is and who was and who is to come"
In the NKJV see Mat. 11:3; 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 1:35; 7: 19, 20; 22:27; John 7:18; Acts 17:23; Eph. 4:10; Heb. 3:3; 8:3; Rev. 11:17; 16:5.
The NASB does this same thing even more than the NKJV and the NIV does it even more than the NASB. Here are just a few from the NASB.
Luke 10:16 "he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me" - NASB "the One who sent Me"
Luke 12:5 "Fear him, which after he hath killed..." -NASB - "fear the One ..."
John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God" - NASB - "except the One who is from God"
John 15:21 "they know not him that sent me" - NASB - "do not know the One who sent Me."
Another irony is the fact that there is a website called Keep the Faith.org which posts articles by James Dobson, R.C. Sproul and Piper who are against the TNIV. On this site one of the verses criticized is Matthew 1:18. Here is their list.
Matthew 1:18 TNIV: "...she was found to be PREGNANT through the Holy Spirit."
ESV: "...she was found to be WITH CHILD from the Holy Spirit.
"KJV: "...she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
NASB: "...she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit." NASB95: "...she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit."
NIV: "...she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
NKJV: "...she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
NLT: "...she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit."
NRSV: "...she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit."
RSV: "...she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;..."
Recently there was a furor over an article published by WorldNetDaily. This is a portion of a recent criticism of the new version coming out by the NIV. I will make some further comments.
From WorldNetDaily.com, available online at: www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=26277
Today's New International Perversion By Joseph Farah February 4, 2002
(Quotes by Mr. Joseph Farah) "Today's New International Perversion - excuse me, Version - of the Bible.
If you didn't think political correctness could ever spread to the Bible itself, check out what HarperCollins (read Rupert Murdoch) and its "Christian" subsidiary, Zondervan, have wrought with this latest translation:
* Mary is no longer "with child," in the femi-nazi version of the Bible. She is "pregnant."
There are hundreds of such examples, perhaps thousands. They have a purpose - a political agenda. There's a reason Mary is no longer "with child." "With child" is a term that makes very clear the humanity of the unborn person inside Mary's womb.
What would have happened if Mary aborted that child - or, as the publishers of the TNIV would probably say, "terminated her pregnancy"? (End of portions from Mr. Farah's article)
Here are my comments on this article: I agree with Mr. Farah in that the expression "She was with child" definitely states that there is a real baby inside the womb. Today's feminazis will unashamedly say "I decided to terminate my pregnancy" but they would not so easily admit "I decided to terminate my child".
What should be noted here is that the new versions have already changed the wording of the King James Bible where it says "the woman WITH CHILD" to "PREGNANT". This is not new to the Inclusive version just now appearing on the scene.
Examples: KJB "And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was WITH CHILD, near to be delivered." NASB "was PREGNANT".
The NASB, NIV and the ESV do this very same thing in the following verses: 1 Samuel 4:19 - "the wife of Phinehas was PREGNANT" (NASB, ESV, NIV) ; 2 Samuel 11:5 - "she sent and told David, I AM PREGNANT." (NASB, ESV, NIV), Ecclesiastes 11:5 - KJB "the womb of her that is WITH CHILD"; "the womb of THE PREGNANT woman" (NASB) (NIV omits) Isaiah 26:17 - KJB "like as a woman WITH CHILD", "as A PREGNANT woman" (NASB, NIV, ESV) and 18 Hosea 13:16 - KJB "their women WITH CHILD shall be ripped up." - "their PREGNANT WOMEN shall be ripped up." (NASB, NIV, ESV) and Amos 1:13 - KJB "the women WITH CHILD" - "the PREGNANT women" (NASB, NIV, ESV)
The NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV change the phrase "with child" to "pregnant" in the following verses:
KJB "And woe unto them that are WITH CHILD"
NKJV "But woe to those who ARE PREGNANT"
Matthew 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23; and 1 Thessalonians 5:3 - (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV)
The NIV changes "with child" to "pregnant" in these verses:
KJB "And she BEING WITH CHILD" Rev. 12:2 NIV "She WAS PREGNANT" and so does the ESV
The NIV and the ESV change "with child" to 'PREGNANT' in the following verses - Genesis 19:36; Genesis 38:24, 25; Exodus 21:22; 1 Samuel 4:19; 2 Samuel 11:5; 2 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13; Matthew 24:19; Mark 13:17; Luke 21:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:3 and Revelation 12:2.
The NASB changes the expression "WITH CHILD" to "PREGNANT" in the following verses: 1 Samuel 4:19; 2 Samuel 11:5; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Isaiah 26:17, 18; Jeremiah 20:17; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13, Matthew 24:19 and Mark 13:17.
I just picked up a newspaper called Rocky Mountain Christian Times, Vol.2 No 7 July 2002. This paper is provided by a local church that uses the NIV. There is an article in it titled More TNIV Controversy. Here is part of the article.
Louisville, Ky (EP) Citing significant changes in the gender language from its highly respected predcessor, the New International Version, 100 respected church leaders issued a joint statement May 28 declaring that they cannot endorse the controversial TNIV.
Among these leaders are Larry Burkett, Charles Colson, James Dobson, Jack Hayford, David Jeremiah, D. James Kennedy, Erwin Lutzer, Bill McCartney, J. I. Packer, Pat Robertson, R. C. Sproul and Don Wildmon.
These men said "The TNIV translation has gone beyond acceptable translation standards in several important respects." They then list several examples among which is this one. They ask the question: "How do they (the TNIV translators) know that changing the word "saints" to "God's people" does not sacrifice precious connotations of holiness which the Greek word carries?". [End of comments in article]
Now, this is a real mind blower. Here are these respected church leaders promoting the use of the "highly respected predecessor", the old NIV, and criticizing the TNIV because they have changed "saints" to "God's people". Yet if they would look at their own old NIV they would see that it has translated the word hagios or saints as "God's people" 10 times already in the New Testament!.
"But fornication, and all uncleannesss, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh SAINTS." Ephesians 5:3. Here the old NIV says GOD'S PEOPLE.
The old NIV does this same thing in Romans 12:13; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 9:12; Ephesians 2:19, 3:8, 4:12, 5:3; Hebrews 13:24, and Revelation 20:9 and 22:21.
This is either blind ignorance or bald faced hypocrisy. These leaders condemn the TNIV for doing the very thing their "highly respected predecessor" - the old NIV- does; yet they continue to endorse, recommend and promote the NIV.
Mr. Farah is correct in his criticism of the new inclusive version. He just missed the fact that this thing has already been going on for some time in the other "perversions" as well.
And now the new New International Version of 2011 has COMPLETELY OMITTED THE WORD SAINTS from both the Old Testament and the New Testament!
The old NIV 1982 at least had the word "SAINTS" in their version 69 times; 24 times in the Old Testament (examples - 1 Samuel 2:9; 2 Chron. 6:41; Psalm 16:3; 30:4; 31:21 etc.) and 45 times in the New Testament (examples - Acts 9:13; Romans 1:7; 8:27; 15:25, 26, 31; 16:2 and 15, etc.) But not the word SAINTS is completely gone in the NIV 2011 edition. What you find instead is the total paraphrase "God's people".
According to Catholic theology, a "saint" is some super special, Pope appointed and approved man or woman of God; not the common, simple believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I would also highly recommend a very well done article about the TNIV by Terry Watkins. It can be found here:http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html
See also my article
All of grace, believing The Book of the LORD (Isaiah 34:16) - the Authorized King James Holy Bible
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm