Saturday, July 02, 2011

My prophecy on Peter Kirk's blog came true ...

I am sure that Peter will be gratified to realize that the prophecy I made on his blog has come true. Sometimes I may appear to be cynical, but I would rather be prepared if disappointment is inevitable. Kurk Gayle has reminded me that I commented on Peter's blog,
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 rejetion of the NIV 2011.
Peter had said in his post,
I have been encouraged to see no strident general rejection of the NIV update on the blogosphere.
Enough time had not passed. The steam was building. The negative responses came and keep on coming. I was especially disappointed to find the Biblical Studies Carnival link favourably to a negative post on the NIV 2011. Notably that post included this passage,
In Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist contexts – the largest church polities in the US – a reaction against gender-sensitive translation has set in. Both faith traditions seek to retain a degree of independence from prevailing cultural trends. This is no doubt salutary.
I believe that it needs to be said, that not all women find the ways in which the RC and SBC counter cultural trends to be salutory. In the past, it was slavery, now it is the rights of women to be treated as equals. What is salutory about that?

I feel that a woman should not read the Biblical Studies Carnival. I try to withdraw from time to time, to protect myself from the awareness of what others think. I don't want to know how many bloggers in the bibliosphere, who, in spite of knowing that adelphoi was listed as "brothers and sisters" in the lexicons of the 19th century, who, in spite of knowing that "brethren" includes women and "brothers" does not, - how many of those bloggers still resent the fact that women want to be addressed according to the best lexicons, as "and sisters."

So, whoever you are, whatever you think - I am not some new age, liberal, radical whatever comes into your mind. I am a person, who, as a teenager, many years ago, was taught that adelphoi meant "brothers and sisters" since the beginning of time.

I want to have in my Bible, the same verses that I had growing up. I want 1 Tim. 5:8 and 2 Tim. 2:2 as they now appear in the NIV 2011, as they were understood up until the recent past. This is what they meant when I was young, and this is what they mean to me now.
Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
So, don't offer women a Bible shot full of holes. Offer her a complete Bible. That is the kind of Bible men want. Why shouldn't women get a complete Bible also? I realize that some bloggers promote gender accurate Bibles, although they may wish to question some details in the NIV2011. I believe it is time to promote gender accuracy in the bibliosphere.


Rod said...

It's also time to promote gender equality in the biblio-blogosphere as well.

J. K. Gayle said...

Right, Rod!

Suzanne, You say:

"I was especially disappointed to find the Biblical Studies Carnival link favourably to a negative post on the NIV 2011."

And I also say:

"I was especially disappointed to find this particular Biblical Studies Carnival linked to no post, not even one, written by a woman."

Peter Kirk said...

Thank you, Suzanne, for the mention and the link. You are indeed a prophet concerning John Hobbins, but then I could also have predicted that he would reject NIV 2011. You are not a prophet concerning Denny Burk as I had already mentioned his reaction in my post. And someone managed to stir up enough SBC delegates against NIV 2011 to pass a snap resolution against the better judgment of the convention organisers - a resolution which will probably be ignored. By contrast, WELS looks likely to accept NIV 2011.

But the negative reaction I see looks mild compared with what was said against TNIV. Have big guns like Piper and Grudem come out strongly against NIV 2011? If so I have not seen anything - and if you had I am sure you would have linked to it. CBMW have left it to Burk to respond on this one. And when I try to download his paper, even Firefox tells me "This Connection is Untrusted"!

Ramesh said...

even Firefox tells me "This Connection is Untrusted"!

The link was a https link. And CBMW SSL cert has expired as of Jan 25th.

One can also access the link by regular http, here.

EricW said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Kirk said...

Understood, Thy Peace, and thanks for the working link. But this doesn't exactly contribute to the trustworthiness of CBMW.

Peter Kirk said...

I have now read the first few pages. And the issues are clear. Denny Burk was brought up first on KJV then on NIV 1984. But he was growing up in a 1990s (I estimate) America in which "man" and "he" were rarely used in gender generic senses. So when he read these words in KJV then NIV he misunderstood them as gender specific and so adopted a faulty and heretical theology (similar to Grudem's and perhaps Piper's) of male headship. He now feels threatened by any attempts to correct or improve his theology, hence his savage attacks on TNIV and NIV 2011.

Suzanne said...

No, I was not referring to John Hobbins, who is not a complementarian. I was predicting CBMW's rejection of the NIV 2011.

I guess you are right that the masculine generic has been long gone for these men.


A great post. I was not aware of what Selma had written.

Donald Johnson said...

My take is John H. defies labels and is in his own group, confusing most of us.

Suzanne said...

I feel comfortable reporting what someone else has said but I do not feel comfortable speculating on why they have said it or in any way discussing their personality. I hope you take this kindly but I felt the need to delete a couple of comments.

Theophrastus said...

It was only in 1995 that the SBC got around to condemning slavery and apologizing to African-Americans.

So, perhaps in 130 years, SBC will be able to realize that its Scriptures apply to women also.

Peter Kirk said...

Just realised that Blogger hasn't picked up a link back to my post in response to this. I know Suzanne saw my post, but others following this may not have.

Charis said...

Am I the first female commenter on this thread?

I feel that a woman should not read the Biblical Studies Carnival. -Suzanne

Never ever read it even once! :D
Didn't even know it existed until this minute. (Thanks be to the Lord for his mercy...)

I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that these competing "authority figures" have rejected all the NIV's. NIV has never been my favorite translation. The dynamic equivalence method makes too many interpretational decisions. And I have not found any modern translation (including the TNIV!) which I think handles the passive indicative grammar of the hupotasso in Ephesians 5:24 respectfully (link).

I always check Young's Literal Translation and often find it a breath of fresh air. And the KJV on biblegateway at least brackets words which translators have added to the Greek so one knows to take them with a grain of salt.

The translation wars are good in that they may encourage people to look deeper and question some of the things the English translation in front of them seems to be saying.