I find it fascinating that he writes,
The new NIV adopts feminist translations of key versesHe then proceeds to cite 1 Tim. 2:12 and Romans 16:7. And yet the NIV 2011 follows in the tradition of Calvin's commentary and the King James version in these two verses. Here is Calvin,
Salutate Andronicum et Juniam, cognatos meos et cocaptivos meos, qui sunt insignes inter Apostolos, qui etiam ante me fuerunt in Christo. Romans 16:7To tell you the truth, I am not sure why Denny Burk does not compare the wording of the NIV 2011 with the King James Bible, Luther's Bible and Calvin's Latin translation. He would see that Luther did not hesitate to translate the word used for "human being" in Greek with a word used for "human being" in German. I see no reason why such instances in English find themselves in Wayne Grudem's list of "inaccuracies."
Docere autem muliere non permitto, neque auctoritatem sibi sumere in virum, sed quietam esse. 1 Tim. 2:12
Denny also claims that the generic "he" pronoun is understood today. That may be so, but here I have listed those preachers who did not understand that the masculine pronoun in English does not translate a semantically masculine pronoun in Greek, notably Russell Moore, who wrote,
Male headship is strictly defined in Scripture as the opposite of a grasp for power. The headship of men in the church and home is rooted everywhere in Scripture in protection and provision. This is why the apostle Paul calls the man who will not provide for his family "worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8 ESV).In fact, this passage contains no reference to a "man" or to an implied "he" at all. I have been thinking that this verse has been reinterpreted to fill a felt need. Certain complementarians may have felt that there ought to be a verse in the Bible which states that the man is the provider, and so this verse has been brought in the fill the gap.
I don't want to be unkind to Denny's review, but I do wish that the CBMW would be open to review.