Like you, I worship a trinitarian God who made human beings — both male and female — in his image. Like you, I believe that males and females are of equal worth and were made differently for the purpose of being united to each other, as the persons of the Trinity are distinct yet united. And I don’t believe that gender-inclusive language undermines that one bit. Using a gender-inclusive term to refer to a group that obviously includes both males and females is just being accurate. It’s just a matter of saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. I believe it supports unity-in-diversity. I fail to see how it would imply sameness.

Kassain wrote that the gender inclusive language is “really, really bad” for women. To me, that seems like a huge overstatement. How is it so bad for women? What is it going to do to them that is so terrible? To what dangerous outcomes will it lead? I just don’t get it.

You emphasize some good points about Zondervan. Your comment above stood out to me: “…so let’s go slower and SUBTLER…” Unfortunately, this is the pattern of any organization desperately promoting their own agenda.

This method of “going slow” is just like the infamous science experiment with two frogs. (I don’t advocate actually doing this experiment…)  If you place a frog in a bowl of boiling hot water, it would instantly jump out. If you place a frog in a bowl of water at room temperature and then turn up the heat 1 degree each day, the frog will boil to death after a couple hundred days. The frog won’t jump out because its body adjusts to the new temperature. If you could talk to the frog, I would imagine it would even say “I want to stay in the water!” even when presented with evidence that the temperature is getting dangerously hot.

I think it might make for an interesting thread if we discussed fantasy novels and Christianity.

What do you think of Matthew 7:17 and Matthew 7:18?

17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

(In reference to your opinion that corrupt leadership does not necessarily lead to a corrupt product)

Also, take a look at what Zondervan, which is supposed to be a Christian publisher, is selling:  

http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310718369&QueryStringSite=Zondervan

It’s a fantasy book with dragons and stuff like that. Don’t get me wrong, when I was a kid, I used to read a lot of fantasy books for fun. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with reading fantasy novels. It’s the fact that a Christian publisher is selling them. I don’t know about anyone else, but to me, there’s something weird about a Christian publisher selling Science fiction and fantasy novels.

In my opinion, I think Zondervan’s main motive in selling these books is to gain more profit, not spreading the Gospel. Do they really want to enrich the youth with the Word of God by selling those types of books?  

I think my main issue in this whole topic is the commercialization of God’s word. I think if we really tried, the Christian community can find a better way of discerning meanings out of original manuscripts. Especially with today’s technology and knowledge.

Here is the actual letter send by the PETA vice president to Doug Moo:

Dear Professor Moo,
I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to commend you for the use of more gender-inclusive language in the current translation of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible.
May we respectfully request that when the committee next convenes, you further extend this reflection of Christ’s message of love to all by referring to non-human animals as “he” or “she” instead of “it” and as “who” instead of “which”? Doing so will go a long way toward helping readers identify animals as living beings valued by God rather than inanimate objects.
As you know, animals were created by God and deserve mercy and compassion; by their very existence, they honor and glorify God. Jesus recognized the unique nature of animals and their inherent value as individual creations of God when he used the love of a mother hen for her chicks to describe his own love for his people.
Christians are increasingly honoring this teaching by rejecting the systematic exploitation of animals as a stain on God’s creation and instead treating animals with respect—both through their eating and buying choices as well as the words that they choose to speak. The Rev. Andrew Linzey gave voice to what we all understand to be true when he wrote that “[a]nimals are God’s creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God’s sight.”
The public now recognizes that animals are feeling, intelligent individuals, capable of joy and suffering. Thus, more and more, writers are using “he,” “she,” and “who” to refer to animals instead of the outdated and inaccurate “it” and “which”—terms that are best reserved for inanimate objects, rather than God’s beloved creatures. Won’t you consider making this transition as well?
I would greatly appreciate hearing your decision on this matter. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Bruce Friedrich
Vice President

I am not a translation expert, so here is just my amateurish opinion: I think that in general one can distinguish two basic approaches when it comes to bible translations.
There are translations, which are very faithful to the manuscripts and try to be as literal as possible. Certainly, these translations are very valuable but also have a couple of downsides. First of all, they are not easy and pleasant to read on a daily basis. Plus, certain things in the original Greek manuscripts are not supposed to be translated literally, for instance, in the case of filler words. These wouldn’t make any sense in today’s English because English doesn’t use these. Thus a more literal rendition is not necessarily reflecting are more accurate translation because the languages just operate differently.  

A translation, which tries to convey in today’s english what the original authors wanted to express cannot be as literal as possible. Instead it has to accommodate to today’s use of English. For instance, how would you translate a Hebrew wordplay? Without alienating its content you would have to look for something appropriate in today’s English. If you don’t that the reader will never be able to see the wordplay.  

My point here is: no matter which these two approaches is favored by today’s bible reader, there are caveats to bear in mind. No translation is perfect. And so i think that the best thing to do is to read different bible versions… Or to spend sweat and tears and lots of time in learning Hebrew and Greek. :)

As for the KJV: it certainly is a beautiful translation, which has shaped English Christian tradition for a very long time. However, this translation is from the early 17th century and very old. Since then, archeologists have discovered many more manuscripts and even more importantly, earlier manuscripts. The KJV is based on the best manuscripts available at that time, which contains a number of flaws. Whereas i would say that the KJV is important historically and for Church tradition i would argue that there are many, many more bibles in English, which provide better translations.

I think your broader point definately highlights our need to be alert of who is selling the bibles we purchase and what is their goal? Is it for the greater glorification of God? Or is it to make a buck of faithful people who want to know God through the bible?
I know your comment will definately make me look into the matter further the next time I purchase a bible. Thank you!  

A few points to consider: Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, All of the original apostles were Jewish, Paul said that he could wish himself to be cut off for the sake of his brethren, those of his own race (unbelieving Jewish people whom he wanted to be saved!), there has always been a remnant of Jewish believers as Paul says in Romans 11:1-5, then Paul says in vs 15, “For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” Paul goes on to even make the amazing  and wonderful and difficult-to-understand  promise that “All Israel will be saved…”

Indeed, I am a Jewish believer in Jesus the Messiah myself. The Lord knows my own sins, including the sin of greed sometimes, but my sinful tendencies are not because I am Jewish! They are because I have a sinful nature as a human being! Greed is not a Jewish problem, it is a human problem. To call Jewish people  greedy, just because they are Jewish is anti-semitic and wrong.

Also, you say, “scripture is meant for Christians.” Of course, scripture is also meant for Jewish people, no? What language was 2/3s of the Bible written in?

Who does the devil hate? God and God’s people, thats who. And that is the reason the the Jews have been persecuted since their beginnings. Be very careful that the spirit of hatred and prejudice against the Jewish race does not infect you!

However, in my opinion, it IS ironic that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish because he himself does not believe in the Gospel. I personally find it very weird, and I’m usually reluctant to buy ANY product that the owner does not believe in.

He’s not Christian, de doesn’t CARE about the Bible and he won’t go THE EXTRA MILE, to ensure the translation is 100% flawless. He’s a corporate mogul that literally does not believe in his product (very sad I’m referring to the Bible).

If Zondervan was its own asset, and not owned by a huge corporate company (NewsCorp), headed by a group of Christian youth who are really passionate about spreading the Gospel to our age group, then I’d be okay with it, and I’d see what their ideas are, and how they plan to do this.

I’m in a Commerce program right now at school. I’m learning a lot about how corporate decisions are made and the general “corporate culture”. I’m not saying there’s anything bad with maximizing profits or that Rupert Murdoch’s intentions and motives are “bad”; it’s just how corporations run. Their existence is to make as much money as they can.

It’s the fact that Scripture is being associated to it, and in my opinion, that’s unacceptable.

Henoch, I also wonder why should we make it our priority to make bibles that are understandable in contemporary English. I mean, our language is getting water down more and more. If people in the 1800s were capable of reading and understanding the KJV with their limited education, I dont see why people today cant do the same.

With the way these bible translations are going, pretty soon we will have the text speak bible “4 Gd so luved da wrld dat he gv hs only Son.”

ML Jones’ 14 volumes of Romans are his sermons preached over 13 years, while Moo’s Romans is a masterful scholarly commentary. I don’t think you can quite compare them.

It’s fun to nit pick stuff with you, Chris, :)))

Keith Danby is the president and CEO of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society. Here’s what he said:
” Danby said they erred in presenting past updates, failed to convince people revisions were needed and “underestimated” readers’ loyalty to the 1984 NIV”
So basically, he underestimated people’s loyalty to the 1984 NIV. When I read that I’m thinking: Scripture isn’t a business? This is like “ohh, we underestimated people’s loyalty to the iPad. What are we going to do about iPad2?? hmmm” See how messed up that is?
The fact is, Keith Danby is a financial executive. Whether he’s conscious of this or not, he’s making moves that is going to PROFIT. That’s one thing I don’t like about Western Culture and its extreme capitalism. EVERYTHING’S about $. Like some of the pastors that drive Ferraris and stuff that get all hype being a TV pastor. Do you hold anything in your heart sacred?
Zondervan is owned by the biggest media conglomerate in the world, HarperCollins/NewsCorp. The same company that publishes books, movies, and other forms of entertainment you wouldn’t want your kids to see. The guy who owns it is a very very wealthy man, and a JEW. I think there’s some funny business going on when the company that has the publishing right to “THE WORD OF GOD”, the Scripture meant for Christians, is owned by a very successful Jewish man.
I think we need to realize that there are people out there that will do anything to get money. And those people in power need to be more responsible and treat the Scriptures for what they are: SACRED SCRIPTURE. If there’s anything in the world that should NOT be capitalized for profit it should be this. I don’t think there really needs to be an updated version. I’m sure a lot of people put tremendous amounts of effort into TNIV, but seriously, no Christian I’ve talked to asked for an “updated” version.

What I fear is that most Western Christians today are among those classes, rather than those who held contempt for the present age, that we are “married” to the culture, especially the more educated and powerful of us.   Instead, our attitude toward this age should be “a baffling attitude, because it mates what seems like contempt for present existence with great concern for existing men” and is not “frightened by the prospect of doom on all men’s works, nor despairing, but confident”. [Niebuhr]
I realize one example is not statistically significant, but I’ll offer it anyway:   The passage in Hebrews 2, cited by Joe as a welcome new translation, happens to provide too much interpretation, IMHO.   Whereas the previous translation (and most others) allow the “he” to point to Jesus as ruler, mankind as rulers, or Jesus as representative of man (son of man), the new version doesn’t afford the reader this latitude in interpretation.   It’s a loss to those who stand in awe of the Scriptures, and a gain to those who are “glorifiers” of humanity.
I’m sorry my examples aren’t very specific.   Maybe the quotes from a respected theologian will deflect attention from my own deficiencies.

Though there are and will be ongoing controversies regarding translation policy (formal equivalence and functional equivalence), and perhaps some financial incentives by the publisher and the authors or translators (even Christians need to earn a living), I think that their over-riding intention is for the Bible to be understood by this generation, which is surely already “different” from the generation of the original NIV (1984).

I think if there is an argument to be made, it should not be in favor of the NIV84 over the NIV2011, but in favor of literal, word for word translations over loose, thought for thought translations. In general, the literal translations are far more concordant and accurate than their dynamic counterparts.

However, even the same words can have different meanings based on their context. Consider the word “run” in English. I could say any of the following:

I am going for a run this morning.
I am going to run to the store.
The car is running.
The water is running.
She is running through my mind.
I am running late.
A pedestrian was run over this morning.
It is a long run from one wall to the other.

You get the point. Although we know that it is the same word, we also know that the meanings are vastly different because of the context. And if we were to translate those phrases into another language we might not use the word “run” each time because it would not make sense. The same goes for the Bible. Just because it might be same root word in the source language does mean that it is always appropriate to use the same word in the receptor language. That is why it is perfectly acceptable to translate Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” instead of “young woman,” because that is what it means based on the context.

Like I said, I stopped using the NIV a while back, although it certainly served me well for many years. The main reason I prefer to use a literal translation of the Bible is precisely because I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, and this allows me to read it in English as close to the original as possible. My preferred translation then is the NASB.

However, in your article, it seemed like you were trying to defend the NIV. The NIV is good because it is cheap but it is cheap because it is popular. Meaning that one time, it was being released as simply a “good updated bible using modern language but sticking close to the meaning.”

I question this. JohnY and I have talked about this and it seems that while the NIV might avoid all the liberal bias you claim the new NIV has, it has it’s own protestant bias. Let me give you some startling examples:

Click here and compare the NIV translation against other well beloved protestant translations like KJV, NKJV :  http://bible.cc/james/2-24.htm
Notice anything weird? But perhaps “what a person does” is just a better translation than works. Let look at another example.

Here are a few Greek words and their English equivalents:
paradosis – tradition
didaskalia – teaching
didachi i – teaching doctrine

In the following verses, tradition (paradosis) is viewed in a negative light. Notice how the NIV retains the original greek translation.  
*Matthew 15:1-5  …why do your  disciples  break tradition…you nullify the word of God for the sake of your  tradition
* Mark 7:1-13 …the pharasees..hold to the transitions of the elders…they observe many traditions
*Galatians 1:14 ..I was advancing in Judaism ..and extremely zealous for my tradition
Colossians 2:8 ..see that no one takes you captive through deceptive philosophy..which depends on human tradition

But then something happens in. In the following verses, the bible presents the word paradosis in a positive light but notice how the NIV breaks from the original greek translation (paradosis) and instead translate the word as saying didaskalia(teaching).
*2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [paradosis]
*2 Thessalonians 3:6 …. keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching [paradosis] you received from us.
*1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and holding to the tradition [paradosis]

If you what you dislike is bias impinged on the bible, then why limit that to liberal bias? Why not turn away from protestant bias as well. My point is that while I understand your disdain for the Updated NIV, I don’t see why you should use the NIV as a baseline (good translation) from which to make your critique. I think the NRSV or NKJV would be much better comparisons.

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 that you are mindful of them,
     a son of man that you care for him?
⁷ You made them a little lower than the angels;
     you crowned them with glory and honor
 ⁸ and put everything under their feet.”

     In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.

The old NIV said, “You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet… everything under him… subject to him.”   This passage in the old NIV  is potentially confusing because it connects Jesus with the whole human race. The author of Hebrews is talking about how God made people (male and female) to rule over the earth, and as heirs of the kingdom of God, we all (male and female) are being restored to our positions as rulers. In the old NIV, the repetition of “him” gave me the false impression that verses 5-8 are about the ruling position of Jesus when those verses are  really  about us. The new version clarifies this quite  well.

I, for one, appreciate the over-whelming wealth of translations out there because as a layman i am not able to read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Thus, the first thing i would do in my bible study and sermon preparations is to read a given passage in different translations (2-3 German translations and 2-3 English translations). Wherever i find discrepancies between these renderings i would then try to consult the original manuscripts with the use of helpful bible software. I found this process to be very rewarding and very helpful. For this very reason i personally welcome the new NIV and intend to use it alongside with other bible translations that i commonly read and study.

Rumors have been flying that the new NIV uses gender-inclusive language for God. It does not. The Godhead and persons of the Trinity are still rendered as male.

The gender-inclusive language is only used for groups of people that include males and females, and for statements/promises about individuals that are meant to apply to all human beings. For example, Psalm 1:1-3 in the old NIV:

1 Blessed is the man
     who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
     or sit in the seat of mockers.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
     and on his law he meditates day and night.
3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
     which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
     Whatever he does prospers.

In the new NIV:

1 Blessed is the one
     who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
     or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
     and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
     which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
     whatever they do prospers.

I don’t see this as  capitulation to the whims of feminists, an attempt to be popular, or an attempt to make money. I think this is a good-faith effort on the part of the translation committee to clarify the meaning of the text in modern English which, whether we like it or not, has been evolving over the last quarter-century to become more gender inclusive, This kind of gender-inclusive language is now the standard in academic and professional publications, and I see nothing wrong with it, It does not undermine any biblical values that I know of.

Chris writes, “One does not need a crystal ball to see into the motives of the folks at Biblica…” I agree. To see their motives, one would need (a) the omniscience of God, or (b) hard evidence that the translators’ true motives are different from the stated motives. In the absence of evidence, I think it is unfair to impugn their motives.