Darrell Bock has blogged in defense of the NIV 2011. Denny Burk countered his arguments, and Dr. Bock responded in the comments as follows,
I would think that 1 Tim. 5:8 is the best example of a real misunderstanding in English. This verse has no masculine pronoun in Greek. It does not refer to male headship, but many theologians seem to think that it does. A gender accurate translation would clear that up.
Here is my core problem. When a text says anyone and then the next Greek term individualizes (but does so with “anyone” as the initial antecedent gloss), then it is clear we have multiple people who fulfill the text when they respond. Thus a rendering of them versus a singular is perfectly accurate linguistically and actually shows the scope of the text more clearly. I find cases like these to be one where either rendering can and does work in communicating meaning. Yet texts like these are what some (not you) have used as basis for rejecting the NIV 2011 and then say to add to the debate that this violates inspiration. I am crying foul on that one (especially the additional concern. It is linguistically incorrect).
Where I do have a real problem, with your critique is to call a rendering feminist. That charge would only be the case IF it came with a denial of limits on the role of women by those translating and that has not taken place. So it injects a criticism that is not fair on the very issue you claim to be standing up for.
One more thing. I am pleased the tone this time around is better. I just think the critique is not justified and have said so.
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for(A) members of his household, he has(B) denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.This refers to men and women both. A translation which does not use gender inclusive language is misleading women about their God-given responsibilities.