English Versions Illuminated

[glen smith]

The current NIV (and others) changed the singular nouns and pronouns to plural. The current NIV does not accurately represent the underlying Greek text. Why did the translators of the NIV make this change? Their stated intent is to use inclusive language in ways that do not change the meaning of the text. They wanted to make sure that women who read the Bible do not feel excluded from it. That is a laudable goal that we can all applaud, because the Bible text does not exclude women, even though some translations may give that impression.
However, in their enthusiasm to get to their goal, they knocked over a few valuable things along the way.

Looking at Hebrews 2:5-9.
In the NASB text, human beings are temporarily lower than the angels. We have been crowned with glory and honor, and God has put everything at our feet. Since everything is subject to us, everything is under our control. We don’t see this yet, but we see it in Jesus.

In the NASB text, Jesus was temporarily lower than the angels. He has been crowned with glory and honor, and God has placed everything at His feet. Since everything is subject to Him, everything is under His control. We don’t see everything as under His control, but we do see Him resurrected and victorious over death.

However, there is a change in meaning from the NASB text which isl about Jesus, but the current NIV text exalts human beings. The implication in the NASB is that we are lower creatures being exalted; in the current NIV, we are exalted creatures being restored. The current NIV’s wording does not allow us to interpret this passage as referring to Jesus, which means it eliminates the interpretation that has been more or less standard for the last 2,000 years!
Was the issue of inclusive language on the New Testament writer’s mind? Probably not. That issue that didn’t come up until the second half of the twentieth century, and it is mainly an issue in the English language, in which gender is no longer a grammatical category. Would the New Testament writer feel that women are less included in the gospel than men? No. The ancient Church had female clergy! Female deacons were regulated in Canon 15 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451. It wasn’t until after the fifth century that the Church stopped ordaining women—long after the epistle to the Galatians was indisputably part of the New Testament canon.

Hebrews 2:5-9 current NIV compared to the changes from the first edition NIV.
⁵ It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. ⁶ But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind (man) that you are mindful of them (him),
a son of man that you care for him? (Job 7:17; Psalm 144:3)
⁷ You made them (him) a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them (him) with glory and honor
⁸ and put everything under their (his) feet.”
In putting everything under them (him), God left nothing that is not subject to them (him). Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them (him). ⁹ But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Compare this Psalm from the ESV and the current NIV which is referenced in Hebrews 2:6 above.

Psalm 144:3 (ESV)
³ O Lord, what is man that you regard him,
or the son of man that you think of him?

Psalm 144:3 (NIV)
³ Lord, what are human beings that you care for them,
mere mortals that you think of them?

Here is another example.

Galatians 3:25-29 current NIV
²⁵ Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God (sons of God) through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The current NIV changes the word “son” to “child” in every case where it applies to us. Again, are they justified in this change? In translating “"sons”" to “"children"” the change ignores the difference in the cultural realities between sons in Judea and children which includes daughters.

In the New Testament era, the word “son” meant more than just “male child.” In that era, a household was a business as much as it was a family; the father owned the business, but the sons conducted it. A son, by virtue of being a son, had what we would call the father’s power of attorney and could bind the father contractually. Daughters could not. By translating both υιος and τεκνον as “child,” the current NIV removes what was for the New Testament writer an important distinction. Son” also had the meaning of “business agent.” A son held specific authority and rights that did not belong to daughters. While muddling the difference might smooth our initial sensitivities, it makes it impossible for us to discover, through Bible study, the passages that tell us that women are not just equally beloved, but are also equally empowered as sons of Judea in the first century. – “"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
”
The lesson is that it is not possible to make a Bible translation that removes the need for study; nor is it possible to make the text inoffensive to our momentary sensitivities without leaving valuable things behind.
Even if the current NIV translators did not know the legal context, they could have learned about it from this passage— in which they did not change “son” to “child”:
Here is an example where the NIV did not make the change.
Hebrews 3:6 NIV
⁶ But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’'s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.

Christ is not the child or daughter over God's house. Christ has the legal rights of a son. In Christ, daughters have the legal rights of a son. Only if there is the inadequate study of the Bible or a secular perspective could one think a gender sensitive text is necessary.

edited and adapted from; http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t5.htm

Here is a list of gender sensitive English versions as currently published on BibleGateway.
For the correct understanding of scripture these versions ought to be used only as a secondary source or not at all.

CEB
CEV
ERV?
EXB?
GNT
MSG
NCV
NIRV
NIV
NIVUK
NRSV
NRSVACE

[Lou Newton]

The current NIV (and others) changed the singular nouns and pronouns to plural. The current NIV does not accurately represent the underlying Greek text. Why did the translators of the NIV make this change? Their stated intent is to use inclusive language in ways that do not change the meaning of the text. They wanted to make sure that women who read the Bible do not feel excluded from it. That is a laudable goal that we can all applaud, because the Bible text does not exclude women, even though some translations may give that impression.
However, in their enthusiasm to get to their goal, they knocked over a few valuable things along the way.

Looking at Hebrews 2:5-9.
In the NASB text, human beings are temporarily lower than the angels. We have been crowned with glory and honor, and God has put everything at our feet. Since everything is subject to us, everything is under our control. We don’t see this yet, but we see it in Jesus.

In the NASB text, Jesus was temporarily lower than the angels. He has been crowned with glory and honor, and God has placed everything at His feet. Since everything is subject to Him, everything is under His control. We don’t see everything as under His control, but we do see Him resurrected and victorious over death.

However, there is a change in meaning from the NASB text which isl about Jesus, but the current NIV text exalts human beings. The implication in the NASB is that we are lower creatures being exalted; in the current NIV, we are exalted creatures being restored. The current NIV’s wording does not allow us to interpret this passage as referring to Jesus, which means it eliminates the interpretation that has been more or less standard for the last 2,000 years!
Was the issue of inclusive language on the New Testament writer’s mind? Probably not. That issue that didn’t come up until the second half of the twentieth century, and it is mainly an issue in the English language, in which gender is no longer a grammatical category. Would the New Testament writer feel that women are less included in the gospel than men? No. The ancient Church had female clergy! Female deacons were regulated in Canon 15 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451. It wasn’t until after the fifth century that the Church stopped ordaining women—long after the epistle to the Galatians was indisputably part of the New Testament canon.

Hebrews 2:5-9 current NIV compared to the changes from the first edition NIV.
⁵ It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. ⁶ But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind (man) that you are mindful of them (him),
a son of man that you care for him? (Job 7:17; Psalm 144:3)
⁷ You made them (him) a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them (him) with glory and honor
⁸ and put everything under their (his) feet.”
In putting everything under them (him), God left nothing that is not subject to them (him). Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them (him). ⁹ But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Compare this Psalm from the ESV and the current NIV which is referenced in Hebrews 2:6 above.

Psalm 144:3 (ESV)
³ O Lord, what is man that you regard him,
or the son of man that you think of him?

Psalm 144:3 (NIV)
³ Lord, what are human beings that you care for them,
mere mortals that you think of them?

Here is another example.

Galatians 3:25-29 current NIV
²⁵ Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God (sons of God) through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The current NIV changes the word “son” to “child” in every case where it applies to us. Again, are they justified in this change? In translating “"sons”" to “"children"” the change ignores the difference in the cultural realities between sons in Judea and children which includes daughters.

In the New Testament era, the word “son” meant more than just “male child.” In that era, a household was a business as much as it was a family; the father owned the business, but the sons conducted it. A son, by virtue of being a son, had what we would call the father’s power of attorney and could bind the father contractually. Daughters could not. By translating both υιος and τεκνον as “child,” the current NIV removes what was for the New Testament writer an important distinction. Son” also had the meaning of “business agent.” A son held specific authority and rights that did not belong to daughters. While muddling the difference might smooth our initial sensitivities, it makes it impossible for us to discover, through Bible study, the passages that tell us that women are not just equally beloved, but are also equally empowered as sons of Judea in the first century. – “"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
”
The lesson is that it is not possible to make a Bible translation that removes the need for study; nor is it possible to make the text inoffensive to our momentary sensitivities without leaving valuable things behind.
Even if the current NIV translators did not know the legal context, they could have learned about it from this passage— in which they did not change “son” to “child”:
Here is an example where the NIV did not make the change.
Hebrews 3:6 NIV
⁶ But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’'s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.

Christ is not the child or daughter over God's house. Christ has the legal rights of a son. In Christ, daughters have the legal rights of a son. Only if there is the inadequate study of the Bible or a secular perspective could one think a gender sensitive text is necessary.

edited and adapted from; http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t5.htm

Here is a list of gender sensitive English versions as currently published on BibleGateway.
For the correct understanding of scripture these versions ought to be used only as a secondary source or not at all.

CEB
CEV
ERV?
EXB?
GNT
MSG
NCV
NIRV
NIV
NIVUK
NRSV
NRSVACE

Glen all English translations are incomplete and not perfect. There are problems with every single one.

But I would never tell anyone not to use them. I would advise everyone to seek The Lord and ask Him what translation they should read. Should I follow the Holy Spirit who lead my by a miracle to a parallel Bible with NIV and TLB in them after I asked Him what translation should I read, or should I follow your advice.

It is only the original Hebrew and Greek that are the Holy Scriptures. For instance the Hebrew and Greek characters also stand for numbers and many messages from God can be understood by using these numbers. But it would be counterproductive to tell people who only understand English to not read any of the English translations.

I would never advise anyone to choose the new World "translation", but I know The Holy Spirit can use it to lead anyone to Christ IF they truly seek the truth.

The KJV and many translations taken from it have an added verse that is simply NOT true and not in even ONE ancient manuscript.

1 John 5

⁶ This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

⁷For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

⁸ And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

There is not ONE verse to serve as a witness to this verse. But more important it is contradictory to the word of Jesus:

Mark 12

²⁸ One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

²⁹ “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

This error has caused much confusion in the church about the very nature of God which is far more important then pronouns being used for men and woman.

I have challenged many to show me another scripture where God calls Himself THREE instead of ONE.

God has told us that everything has to be established by TWO or MORE witnesses.

Or how about this verse in the KJV:

⁹ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Certainly one could be very confused and see that this seems to condradict this verse:

⁸If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

I think the NIV is much clearer here:

⁹ No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

This is not some little detail of history that is good to know, but the very foundation of being saved.

We can choose to attack the Translations that one another read, but I think it is counterproductive. For it might end up destroying the very faith of someone who is new and immature. The Holy Spirit can use ANY translation to lead someone to the truth. The important thing here is that everyone looks to The Holy Spirit who is The Author of The Book and not any one translation of The Book.

I do not want to use this website to attack different translations of The Book.

When you say that no one should read the NIV you are making a direct attack on me, for you know I read the NIV along with others.

Certainly anyone's time is better spent writing or reading about the errors of The Book of Mormon or The Koran than criticizing different translations of The Bible.

It is fine to point out a verse in a translation that is different than in another. BUT to list a lot of translations that you think no one should read in not productive dear friend.

Also many newer editions of any translation may be inferior to an older one. I read only the 1985 NIV and try to stay away from the newer editions.

[Steve Hollander]

The current NIV (and others) changed the singular nouns and pronouns to plural. The current NIV does not accurately represent the underlying Greek text. Why did the translators of the NIV make this change? Their stated intent is to use inclusive language in ways that do not change the meaning of the text. They wanted to make sure that women who read the Bible do not feel excluded from it. That is a laudable goal that we can all applaud, because the Bible text does not exclude women, even though some translations may give that impression.
However, in their enthusiasm to get to their goal, they knocked over a few valuable things along the way.

Looking at Hebrews 2:5-9.
In the NASB text, human beings are temporarily lower than the angels. We have been crowned with glory and honor, and God has put everything at our feet. Since everything is subject to us, everything is under our control. We don’t see this yet, but we see it in Jesus.

In the NASB text, Jesus was temporarily lower than the angels. He has been crowned with glory and honor, and God has placed everything at His feet. Since everything is subject to Him, everything is under His control. We don’t see everything as under His control, but we do see Him resurrected and victorious over death.

However, there is a change in meaning from the NASB text which isl about Jesus, but the current NIV text exalts human beings. The implication in the NASB is that we are lower creatures being exalted; in the current NIV, we are exalted creatures being restored. The current NIV’s wording does not allow us to interpret this passage as referring to Jesus, which means it eliminates the interpretation that has been more or less standard for the last 2,000 years!
Was the issue of inclusive language on the New Testament writer’s mind? Probably not. That issue that didn’t come up until the second half of the twentieth century, and it is mainly an issue in the English language, in which gender is no longer a grammatical category. Would the New Testament writer feel that women are less included in the gospel than men? No. The ancient Church had female clergy! Female deacons were regulated in Canon 15 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451. It wasn’t until after the fifth century that the Church stopped ordaining women—long after the epistle to the Galatians was indisputably part of the New Testament canon.

Hebrews 2:5-9 current NIV compared to the changes from the first edition NIV.
⁵ It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. ⁶ But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind (man) that you are mindful of them (him),
a son of man that you care for him? (Job 7:17; Psalm 144:3)
⁷ You made them (him) a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them (him) with glory and honor
⁸ and put everything under their (his) feet.”
In putting everything under them (him), God left nothing that is not subject to them (him). Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them (him). ⁹ But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Compare this Psalm from the ESV and the current NIV which is referenced in Hebrews 2:6 above.

Psalm 144:3 (ESV)
³ O Lord, what is man that you regard him,
or the son of man that you think of him?

Psalm 144:3 (NIV)
³ Lord, what are human beings that you care for them,
mere mortals that you think of them?

Here is another example.

Galatians 3:25-29 current NIV
²⁵ Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God (sons of God) through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The current NIV changes the word “son” to “child” in every case where it applies to us. Again, are they justified in this change? In translating “"sons”" to “"children"” the change ignores the difference in the cultural realities between sons in Judea and children which includes daughters.

In the New Testament era, the word “son” meant more than just “male child.” In that era, a household was a business as much as it was a family; the father owned the business, but the sons conducted it. A son, by virtue of being a son, had what we would call the father’s power of attorney and could bind the father contractually. Daughters could not. By translating both υιος and τεκνον as “child,” the current NIV removes what was for the New Testament writer an important distinction. Son” also had the meaning of “business agent.” A son held specific authority and rights that did not belong to daughters. While muddling the difference might smooth our initial sensitivities, it makes it impossible for us to discover, through Bible study, the passages that tell us that women are not just equally beloved, but are also equally empowered as sons of Judea in the first century. – “"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
”
The lesson is that it is not possible to make a Bible translation that removes the need for study; nor is it possible to make the text inoffensive to our momentary sensitivities without leaving valuable things behind.
Even if the current NIV translators did not know the legal context, they could have learned about it from this passage— in which they did not change “son” to “child”:
Here is an example where the NIV did not make the change.
Hebrews 3:6 NIV
⁶ But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’'s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.

Christ is not the child or daughter over God's house. Christ has the legal rights of a son. In Christ, daughters have the legal rights of a son. Only if there is the inadequate study of the Bible or a secular perspective could one think a gender sensitive text is necessary.

edited and adapted from; http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t5.htm

Here is a list of gender sensitive English versions as currently published on BibleGateway.
For the correct understanding of scripture these versions ought to be used only as a secondary source or not at all.

CEB
CEV
ERV?
EXB?
GNT
MSG
NCV
NIRV
NIV
NIVUK
NRSV
NRSVACE

Hi Glenn,
Are you implying that we should not be reading and using the NIV translation of the scriptures for as 2Tim 3:16 says? ...... Steve

[glen smith]

Hi Glenn,
Are you implying that we should not be reading and using the NIV translation of the scriptures for as 2Tim 3:16 says? ...... Steve

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brother Steve Hollander,
2 Tim 3:16 refers to “all scripture” as being inspired of God.
Does “all scripture” include “The New World Translation” by the JW?
Does it include the LDS “Book of Mormon”?

When the Apostle Paul sent this letter to Timothy (c. A.D. 67) the Old Testament was the only scriptures used by the early church. The Apostle Peter referenced the writings of the Apostle Paul as “other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:14-17 c. A.D. 64). It is not known if the Apostle Paul was aware of the Apostle Peter’'s reference.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Apostle Paul was referring to the Old Testament.
However, by extension it is appropriate to assume that all the writings canonized by the Church are inspired by God.

Theologically speaking, the inspiration mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to the autograph texts in their original languages, thereby making any scribal error in copying or translation to another language not inspired scripture. Theologically, a translation cannot be inspired.

However, this is not what the Apostle meant. It is clear he meant that copies of the Old Testament scriptures were inspired. The Apostle Paul does his own paraphrase but seldom does a translation from Hebrew to Greek. So, what scripture did the Apostle Paul label as inspired?

Two questions arise from this information:

1. Since there exists no known original autograph texts where does that leave believers who have only the copies of the originals?

2. How are those who only read a language other than Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic supposed to read the inspired revelation?

These questions address topics beyond what is required to answer your question but helps explore the larger ideas in your question.

Concerning your question about using the NIV translation? Regardless of the translation, a serious Bible student ought to be aware of any issues with the translation being used. Every translation has made some questionable translation or textual choices. I will upon occasion quote from the NIV and other gender sensitive versions when the specific translation helps in understanding the point that is being made. Sometimes, when the translation is reliable, I will quote from the NIV if I know my audience is using the NIV.
This is an accommodation made to my audience to aid in their study. Because the gender sensitive issue alone misrepresents the meaning of some passages, I think it is wise to avoid these versions for general Bible reading and study and to use them sparingly for reference purposes.

In favor of the gender sensitive versions are issues like the following:

James, 2 Peter, 1 John, 3 John use “brothers” 22 times where the meaning is brothers and sisters in the Lord. It is not a requirement that the “sisters in the Lord” be excluded from the meaning when just the masculine name for sibling (“brothers”) is used. On the other hand, if the writer used just “sisters,” this would necessarily exclude “brothers.” Gender sensitive versions like the NIV and NRSV add “and sisters” because in these cases it is the meaning although not a literal translation. Good Bible study includes the understanding of both the literal and actual meaning of words and phrases.

History:
Before the modern women’s liberation movement, it was common for all authors to use the masculine pronouns and nouns to mean everybody –as in "“man"” instead of “"mankind"” or “"men"” instead of "“people".” When the authors or speakers referred back to one of these nouns he would use the masculine pronoun. The gender sensitive versions are just a secular response to the women’s liberation movement –so to be “politically correct” although in some cases being biblically incorrect.

If you are aware of every instance where the NIV changes the gender or number of the noun and pronoun, then you would be skilled in using the NIV, but will your audience be so skilled?

[Lou Newton]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brother Steve Hollander,
2 Tim 3:16 refers to “all scripture” as being inspired of God.
Does “all scripture” include “The New World Translation” by the JW?
Does it include the LDS “Book of Mormon”?

When the Apostle Paul sent this letter to Timothy (c. A.D. 67) the Old Testament was the only scriptures used by the early church. The Apostle Peter referenced the writings of the Apostle Paul as “other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:14-17 c. A.D. 64). It is not known if the Apostle Paul was aware of the Apostle Peter’'s reference.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Apostle Paul was referring to the Old Testament.
However, by extension it is appropriate to assume that all the writings canonized by the Church are inspired by God.

Theologically speaking, the inspiration mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to the autograph texts in their original languages, thereby making any scribal error in copying or translation to another language not inspired scripture. Theologically, a translation cannot be inspired.

However, this is not what the Apostle meant. It is clear he meant that copies of the Old Testament scriptures were inspired. The Apostle Paul does his own paraphrase but seldom does a translation from Hebrew to Greek. So, what scripture did the Apostle Paul label as inspired?

Two questions arise from this information:

1. Since there exists no known original autograph texts where does that leave believers who have only the copies of the originals?

2. How are those who only read a language other than Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic supposed to read the inspired revelation?

These questions address topics beyond what is required to answer your question but helps explore the larger ideas in your question.

Concerning your question about using the NIV translation? Regardless of the translation, a serious Bible student ought to be aware of any issues with the translation being used. Every translation has made some questionable translation or textual choices. I will upon occasion quote from the NIV and other gender sensitive versions when the specific translation helps in understanding the point that is being made. Sometimes, when the translation is reliable, I will quote from the NIV if I know my audience is using the NIV.
This is an accommodation made to my audience to aid in their study. Because the gender sensitive issue alone misrepresents the meaning of some passages, I think it is wise to avoid these versions for general Bible reading and study and to use them sparingly for reference purposes.

In favor of the gender sensitive versions are issues like the following:

James, 2 Peter, 1 John, 3 John use “brothers” 22 times where the meaning is brothers and sisters in the Lord. It is not a requirement that the “sisters in the Lord” be excluded from the meaning when just the masculine name for sibling (“brothers”) is used. On the other hand, if the writer used just “sisters,” this would necessarily exclude “brothers.” Gender sensitive versions like the NIV and NRSV add “and sisters” because in these cases it is the meaning although not a literal translation. Good Bible study includes the understanding of both the literal and actual meaning of words and phrases.

History:
Before the modern women’s liberation movement, it was common for all authors to use the masculine pronouns and nouns to mean everybody –as in "“man"” instead of “"mankind"” or “"men"” instead of "“people".” When the authors or speakers referred back to one of these nouns he would use the masculine pronoun. The gender sensitive versions are just a secular response to the women’s liberation movement –so to be “politically correct” although in some cases being biblically incorrect.

If you are aware of every instance where the NIV changes the gender or number of the noun and pronoun, then you would be skilled in using the NIV, but will your audience be so skilled?

Hi Glen,

The original Hebrew and Greek use the language they used back in the days it was written. The NIV simply says the same thing in the words used today.

The meaning is what is important. The original language uses the word "man" to mean all of mankind, both male and female. After all both male and the feMALE are both MALES. There is the MALE and the fetus bearing MALE. But today many would think the female is not included when saying all men are included. So some translations simply state that both the man and woman are included. What is the problem here ?

With the original one has to know the meaning of the words back when it was written. With the modern versions one has to know the meaning of the words now. You state that it is OK to translate the original Hebrew and Greek into English used in 1611, because not many can understand Hebrew and Greek. Then by the same reasoning it is OK to translate the Hebrew and Greek into modern English because not many understand the English language used in 1611.

You say that the NIV does not use the same words, but the KJV does not use the same words either as the original Hebrew and Greek.

A literal translation is NOT a superior translation. It is NOT the words used but the meaning that it important in a translation, for the literal words have been lost in ANY translation. The literal words were Hebrew and Greek.

For example: "Le Pomme de terre" in French when translated literally would be "apple of the earth". But it is a better translation to simple say what the french words MEAN instead of using the same words in English and say "potato".

Now when translating the Hebrew and Greek I have already said that many things are lost. The number of words and the actual words are different and God has meaning in the actual words and the value of their numbers. BUT those who do not speak Hebrew and Greek can not understand the meaning of the original language.

Certainly if it is OK to translate the original Hebrew and Greek into 1611 English it is OK to translate the original language into 2017 American.

Another point is this: you point out that the original Hebrew culture had certain laws and customs back when it was written and our customs are different today. BUT God does not follow men, even Hebrews, but men are to follow God. In other words the customs of men back in that day are not the standard, but God's laws are the standard anyhow. Although it can be useful at times to know the customs of the days it was written.

I have experience with groups that insist the KJV translation the the only real Bible. But I have failed to see any real life in any of these groups. They all seem to be lost in a stagnet pool of "literal" words and follow the law instead of following the Holy Spirit.

[Steve Hollander]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brother Steve Hollander,
2 Tim 3:16 refers to “all scripture” as being inspired of God.
Does “all scripture” include “The New World Translation” by the JW?
Does it include the LDS “Book of Mormon”?

When the Apostle Paul sent this letter to Timothy (c. A.D. 67) the Old Testament was the only scriptures used by the early church. The Apostle Peter referenced the writings of the Apostle Paul as “other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:14-17 c. A.D. 64). It is not known if the Apostle Paul was aware of the Apostle Peter’'s reference.

Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Apostle Paul was referring to the Old Testament.
However, by extension it is appropriate to assume that all the writings canonized by the Church are inspired by God.

Theologically speaking, the inspiration mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16 applies to the autograph texts in their original languages, thereby making any scribal error in copying or translation to another language not inspired scripture. Theologically, a translation cannot be inspired.

However, this is not what the Apostle meant. It is clear he meant that copies of the Old Testament scriptures were inspired. The Apostle Paul does his own paraphrase but seldom does a translation from Hebrew to Greek. So, what scripture did the Apostle Paul label as inspired?

Two questions arise from this information:

1. Since there exists no known original autograph texts where does that leave believers who have only the copies of the originals?

2. How are those who only read a language other than Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic supposed to read the inspired revelation?

These questions address topics beyond what is required to answer your question but helps explore the larger ideas in your question.

Concerning your question about using the NIV translation? Regardless of the translation, a serious Bible student ought to be aware of any issues with the translation being used. Every translation has made some questionable translation or textual choices. I will upon occasion quote from the NIV and other gender sensitive versions when the specific translation helps in understanding the point that is being made. Sometimes, when the translation is reliable, I will quote from the NIV if I know my audience is using the NIV.
This is an accommodation made to my audience to aid in their study. Because the gender sensitive issue alone misrepresents the meaning of some passages, I think it is wise to avoid these versions for general Bible reading and study and to use them sparingly for reference purposes.

In favor of the gender sensitive versions are issues like the following:

James, 2 Peter, 1 John, 3 John use “brothers” 22 times where the meaning is brothers and sisters in the Lord. It is not a requirement that the “sisters in the Lord” be excluded from the meaning when just the masculine name for sibling (“brothers”) is used. On the other hand, if the writer used just “sisters,” this would necessarily exclude “brothers.” Gender sensitive versions like the NIV and NRSV add “and sisters” because in these cases it is the meaning although not a literal translation. Good Bible study includes the understanding of both the literal and actual meaning of words and phrases.

History:
Before the modern women’s liberation movement, it was common for all authors to use the masculine pronouns and nouns to mean everybody –as in "“man"” instead of “"mankind"” or “"men"” instead of "“people".” When the authors or speakers referred back to one of these nouns he would use the masculine pronoun. The gender sensitive versions are just a secular response to the women’s liberation movement –so to be “politically correct” although in some cases being biblically incorrect.

If you are aware of every instance where the NIV changes the gender or number of the noun and pronoun, then you would be skilled in using the NIV, but will your audience be so skilled?

Hi Glen,
Thanks for the reply. I tend to agree with Lou here. I see that men are flawed and always making attempts to please each other instead of pleasing God.
Translations are going to be different since there are not always the same words in different languages. Sometimes a word is translated into a a group of words to describe the meaning of the word.
I think as students of the Lord,we need to be guided by His Spirit to get an understanding of the scriptures. Blessings brother..... Steve

[glen smith]

We can choose to attack the Translations that one another read, but I think it is counterproductive. For it might end up destroying the very faith of someone who is new and immature. The Holy Spirit can use ANY translation to lead someone to the truth. The important thing here is that everyone looks to The Holy Spirit who is The Author of The Book and not any one translation of The Book.

I do not want to use this website to attack different translations of The Book.

Let glen try to restate the issues here.
It is acceptable for Lou to demand glen not illuminate the problems with gender sensitive versions like the NRSV and the NIV because it might destroy the faith Christians on a forum with less than ten active members, but it is acceptable for Lou to illuminate the problems with the KJV which will presumably not to destroy the faith of Christians?
How is that rational?

Glen is bothered that Lou takes the illumination of the issues of any translation, and particularly the NIV, as a personal attack on him. Lou did not translate any version of the Bible. He is not to blame or to be given credit. A person’s choice of an English version might depend upon a host of issues and preferences. Is the extensive attack on the KJV intended as an attack on glen? If so, he is not offended.

Ignoring the differences in English translations, or ignoring translation philosophy, or ignoring translation or textual issues diminishes the Bible reader’s perspective and ability to arrive at an appropriate understanding or interpretation. The most notable example is those who “take up the serpent.” They claim the Holy Ghost leads them.

For more then fifty years old glen has faced both criticism and condescension for his choice of English versions. In some cases not choosing the same English version that another has chosen (most often the NASB) seems to some how be a rejection of them or their advice. The same might be said of differences in interpretations. At the very least, those who “take up the serpent” have the certainty to place their life where their belief is and invite others to do the same. All the while others ridicule their faith and actions. In speaking against their beliefs one ought to avoid ridicule. Opposition ought to arise from love and concern for a better understanding. Someday, there might be a forum like that.

Please do not be offended when there is disagreement!

[Lou Newton]

Let glen try to restate the issues here.
It is acceptable for Lou to demand glen not illuminate the problems with gender sensitive versions like the NRSV and the NIV because it might destroy the faith Christians on a forum with less than ten active members, but it is acceptable for Lou to illuminate the problems with the KJV which will presumably not to destroy the faith of Christians?
How is that rational?

Glen is bothered that Lou takes the illumination of the issues of any translation, and particularly the NIV, as a personal attack on him. Lou did not translate any version of the Bible. He is not to blame or to be given credit. A person’s choice of an English version might depend upon a host of issues and preferences. Is the extensive attack on the KJV intended as an attack on glen? If so, he is not offended.

Ignoring the differences in English translations, or ignoring translation philosophy, or ignoring translation or textual issues diminishes the Bible reader’s perspective and ability to arrive at an appropriate understanding or interpretation. The most notable example is those who “take up the serpent.” They claim the Holy Ghost leads them.

For more then fifty years old glen has faced both criticism and condescension for his choice of English versions. In some cases not choosing the same English version that another has chosen (most often the NASB) seems to some how be a rejection of them or their advice. The same might be said of differences in interpretations. At the very least, those who “take up the serpent” have the certainty to place their life where their belief is and invite others to do the same. All the while others ridicule their faith and actions. In speaking against their beliefs one ought to avoid ridicule. Opposition ought to arise from love and concern for a better understanding. Someday, there might be a forum like that.

Please do not be offended when there is disagreement!

Glen you misunderstood and did not read with enough care:

I wrote:

Glen all English translations are incomplete and not perfect. There are problems with every single one.

But I would never tell anyone not to use them. I would advise everyone to seek The Lord and ask Him what translation they should read. Should I follow the Holy Spirit who lead my by a miracle to a parallel Bible with NIV and TLB in them after I asked Him what translation should I read, or should I follow your advice.

It is only the original Hebrew and Greek that are the Holy Scriptures. For instance the Hebrew and Greek characters also stand for numbers and many messages from God can be understood by using these numbers. But it would be counterproductive to tell people who only understand English to not read any of the English translations.

I would never advise anyone to choose the new World "translation", but I know The Holy Spirit can use it to lead anyone to Christ IF they truly seek the truth.

The KJV and many translations taken from it have an added verse that is simply NOT true and not in even ONE ancient manuscript.

1 John 5

⁶ This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

⁷For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

⁸ And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

There is not ONE verse to serve as a witness to this verse. But more important it is contradictory to the word of Jesus:

Mark 12

²⁸ One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

²⁹ “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

This error has caused much confusion in the church about the very nature of God which is far more important then pronouns being used for men and woman.

I have challenged many to show me another scripture where God calls Himself THREE instead of ONE.

God has told us that everything has to be established by TWO or MORE witnesses.

Or how about this verse in the KJV:

⁹ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Certainly one could be very confused and see that this seems to condradict this verse:

⁸If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

I think the NIV is much clearer here:

⁹ No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

This is not some little detail of history that is good to know, but the very foundation of being saved.

We can choose to attack the Translations that one another read, but I think it is counterproductive. For it might end up destroying the very faith of someone who is new and immature. The Holy Spirit can use ANY translation to lead someone to the truth. The important thing here is that everyone looks to The Holy Spirit who is The Author of The Book and not any one translation of The Book.

I do not want to use this website to attack different translations of The Book.

When you say that no one should read the NIV you are making a direct attack on me, for you know I read the NIV along with others.

Certainly anyone's time is better spent writing or reading about the errors of The Book of Mormon or The Koran than criticizing different translations of The Bible.

It is fine to point out a verse in a translation that is different than in another. BUT to list a lot of translations that you think no one should read in not productive dear friend.

Also many newer editions of any translation may be inferior to an older one. I read only the 1985 NIV and try to stay away from the newer editions.

I did not have a problem with you pointing out that you do not like the NIV for changing him to them.

I did have a problem with you stating that no one should read these versions. I also asked you if I should take your advise OR should I ask The Holy Spirit what translation I should read and obey him.

I also pointed out some far more serious problems with the KJV and the versions taken from it. You have chose to IGNORE these questions.

The KJV: ⁹ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


This is simply NOT correct. I have seen a so called preacher take this verse and teach his whole congregation that they no longer sinned. This is NOT an issue of gender, but it is an issue of SALVATION. For John tells us this:

⁸If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

When people confess that they no longer sin, they walk out of the bounds of the grace of God and are lost.

You chose to ignore this question and instead accused me of being unfair.

A discussion has to be two sided. If one member ignores the objections of the other and instead keeps pointing to other things instead, that is NOT a discussion at all.

Please answer the objections that I pointed out instead of ignoring them.