Wednesday, June 22, 2011

NIV 2011 and the SBC resolution

More Links

Rev. Mark Stevens
Quadrilateral Thoughts
Aristotle's Feminist Subject
Bridget Jack Jeffries

A few links,

Apprentice to Jesus
συνεσταύρωμαι: living the crucified life
Claude Mariottini
A 'Goula Blogger
Unsettled Christianity
The Wartburg Watch

More tomorrow. Here is something that puzzles me. The SBC rejects the wording of 1 Tim. 2:12, "to assume authority" in the NIV 2011. Since that is only a moderate version of what is in the KJV, "to usurp authority" does that mean that the SBC would not accept the KJV? Does this leave us without any common Bible, not even the KJV? That is what I am trying to figure out.


J. K. Gayle said...

Thursday 11 November, 2010 at 2:23 am

I predict that complementarians will completely reject the new NIV because of 1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Cor. 11:10, the paragraphing of Eph. 5:21-22, and Romans 16:7. John Piper has already spoken vociferously against the NIV 1984, perhaps to pave the way for a full rejection of the NIV 2011.

Do you remember making this prediction here? The prophecy has been fulfilled.

Anonymous said...

You show the weakness of your position by unfairly characterizing your enemy's position.
You know it has nothing whatever to do with the KJV.

To J.K.:
It's not just Complementarians who have an issue with the NIV 2011 and TNIV, it is anyone who believes what God said is sacred and not to be changed by the ebbs and flows of culture or the sinful desires of people.

As for 1 Timothy 2.12, the TNIV and NIV 2011 have to wrench the phrase in question badly out of context as Paul says the reason women shouldn’t be in authority over men is a creation issue, and that before the fall.
And as for the translation itself: “There are some significant problematic passages in the new NIV(2011) that have been retained from the TNIV, not the least of which is the deliberately ambiguous rendering of authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 as “assume authority.” The CBT says that this leaves the interpretation of the passage open, but it actually intentionally introduces a crucial ambiguity that is not found in the original NIV (which accurately translated authentein “have authority”). The new NIV(2011)’s translation of authentein designedly lends itself to a common current egalitarian misinterpretation of this passage (i.e., that Paul is only addressing the case of women illegitimately “assuming” authority, rather than prohibiting women from having/exercising authority as teacher/shepherds of the church). Bells should go off when one notes that even the gender-neutral NRSV translates authentein “have authority” here (!)—along with the NIV, NLT, HCSB, NKJV, and NIRV, while the NASB, HCSB and ESV similarly translate it as “exercise authority.” Thus, the CBT is out on a limb here over against the other main modern English translations. And it is out on a limb precisely because of its attempt to be “neutral” on a passage that even the translators of the NRSV have not attempted to make more amenable to an egalitarian interpretation. There are, of course, other problems with the rendering “assume authority” in contrast with “have authority” (NIV) and “exercise authority” (NASB). For instance, it is clear in English that the latter two prohibit women from the being in the state of having/holding/exercising of authority, whereas “assume authority” could easily be misconstrued as pertaining only to the taking up of authority (whether legitimately or illegitimately) or the way in which one comes into the state of authority. But where is the evidence that authentein indicates only entry into a state of authority? Thus the introduction of “assume” here carries with it a connotation that either misleads or allows the English reader to be misled."

This is in addition to roughly 3000 verses that are intentionally mistranslated to remove male references (he, him, his, brother, father, and son) that are clearly in the Greek and Hebrew texts. And not just removed but the passages had to be mangled to do so.

No, anyone who values accuracy in translation or believes God's Word is sacred cannot take these 2 Bibles seriously.