Tell Me What You Think
I could have set this up as a poll on my blog page, but I wanted your real opinions on this matter. The question of the week is a follows:
The Southern Baptist Convention has requested that Lifeway stop selling the 2011 version of the NIV because it is too “gender neutral”. What is your opinion. Is the 2011 NIV too gender neutral? If so, should Lifeway, which is owned by the SBC be forced to remove it and no longer sell this popular Bible Translation?
Tell me what you think. I promise I won’t give any harsh responses, I just want your opinions.
Thanks,
Mike
Middle Age Ramblings 
Off subject: Are you aware of the advertisement videos automatically generated by WordPress being placed at the end of some of our posts 🙂 ? I wasn’t aware until recently since they didn’t show up as I viewed or edited posts within my site. The one here is Venture/Adventure Card (vacation card) and is G rated …lol. I have started putting disclaimers at the end of each of my new posts.
About the 2011 NIV. I wasn’t familiar with the SB Resolution until your question so I found the full evaluation and read.
Southern Baptists biggest complaint seems to be any change that infers women should be preachers/pastors/deacons and so forth…feminist influence. Example..in a verse Pheobe was said to be ‘deacon’ rather than the 1984 ‘servant.’ My immediate thought was the original ordination of the seven by Christ who were commissioned to ‘serve tables’ (now wer refer to them as deacons)…thus, initially, they were ‘servants.’ In all of the revisions I could see the point and/or purpose. But my concern with any gender-neutral revision philosophy is not regarding the role of women at all…but regarding the whole of gender neutrality relating to homosexuality and role reversals. I see no need at all for continued updating of wording in the NIV for the purpose of making its meaning more understandable for current generation. The Word of God is not a book to be read and understood related to personal background or experience. It is the living Word of God and is supernatural in essence, scope, and revelation. Mere reading of the Bible does not open its treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The Holy Spirit literally personally opens the heart and mind of one who seeks Christ in its pages and teaches the meaning of each and every word…rightly dividing…making clear original intent and purpose. The Bible is not an instruction book for churchianity or religiousosity (how do ya like that word…lol) but is the powerful, divinely written, Word of God….supernatural from Genesis through Revelations. To attempt to gain understanding of its precepts by mere reading its words is fruitless.
I use the King James version since I love the language style. But it is God who teaches ‘what He meant by what He said’. It is He who ‘writes’ His Truth in my heart…makes me know His intent..and ‘rightly divides’ or reveals clear meaning. I have found no contradition in the whole of its texts. Not one! But when men believe that men must update wording/expression/explanation to be better grasped/understood by contemporary men….dangers abound! Therefore, I would like to see the Southern Baptists stand firm on the Holy Spirit as Teacher rather than to make women’s role the issue. God is clear in scripture about the role of women. Eve came forth from Adam as the Bride comes forth from Christ. The humility of Eve equates with the humility of the Bride before the Bridegroom. Sarah called Abraham ‘Lord’ from her heart. Abraham gave equal honor to Sarah as Adam did to Eve, as Isaac did to Rebekah, as Jacob did to Rachel, and so forth. And the two are ‘one.’ Yet apart from the procreative relationships God used Esther to save Israel, Rebekah received the prophecy ‘Jacob have I loved’and acted on its fulfillment in obtaining the Birthright for Jacob. Deborah was God-ordained Judge over Israel. So I am more concerned that the Southern Baptist Resolution’s intent is geared more to protecting a doctrine of concern rather than the purity of the whole Word.
And after seeing the video I strongly feel such an issue should have received much more scrutiny and debate rather than popping up on the floor and being ‘passed’ in a Resolution without clarifying clear purposes and intent. My impression was that approving the Resolution puts the Southern Baptist on record again as saying women clery are not God-called, thus, the Southern Baptist are claiming a superior position over their Pentacostal brothers and sisters.
Don’t shoot me since I am only sharing what I ‘think’…my dime-a-dozen opinion from my heart and my experience…lol.
Good question!!!
LikeLike
I am not going to shoot anybody. The purpose of this post was to find out peoples opinions about this issue. Thanks for being open and honest with me. It is appreciated. I am thinking about some more of these type of posts in the future to give others a chance to speak openly about issues.
On the side note, thanks for the heads up about the ads. I will have to check that out.
LikeLike
Different readers will have different opinions about the appropriateness of gender-neutral language in the revised NIV. Some will like it, and others will not. Personally, I can understand the change to “brothers and sisters” or “mankind” when the context clearly refers to all people, but when the context is not clearly gender-neutral, the translation should not be gender-neutral. I feel the 2011 revision goes too far in places like Psalm 1 where it changes “man” to “one” and Malachi 4:6 where it changes “fathers” to “parents.” It is unfortunate that this issue has clouded the discussion of this revision, which is otherwise more accurate than before. People who love the NIV and do not object to gender-neutral language should embrace this revision with even more confidence in its accuracy, and people who object to the gender-neutral language will prefer translations such as the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) or English Standard Version (ESV). Read my detailed discussion of this on my blog at http://bobrogers.me/2011/12/03/2011-revision-of-niv-bible-both-pleasing-and-disappointing/
LikeLike