# NIV 2011 Good or Bad



## sevenzedek (Feb 9, 2013)

I did a quick search on the PB and did not find any threads conversing about the topic of the good and bad aspects of the NIV 2011.

I thought the general consensus of the evangelical world is that the gender inclusive language of the NIV 2011 makes it not only an inaccurate translation, but a translation that should not be recommended.

Recently, I have been challenged concerning some of my recent comments about the NIV 2011 and I would like to not test my convictions and provide a "landing spot" on the web for those who might do a search for the NIV 2011. If this is really a bad translation, then others would certainly be edified by hearing the negative reviews of those who might be taken seriously. If this is a good translation, then let it be commended.

Comments, quotes, an links are welcome.

Thanks.


----------



## Edward (Feb 9, 2013)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/niv-2011-a-68963/


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 9, 2013)

My vote: bad!

Dan Wallace's opinion:


> In sum, what can we say overall about the NIV 2011? First, it is a well-thought out translation, with checks and balances through rigorous testing, overlapping committees to ensure consistency and accuracy, and a publisher willing to commit significant resources to make this Bible appealing to the Christian reader. The commitment of the CBT, Biblica, the NIV translators, and Zondervan is truly stunning. A serious investment of money and manpower has produced this translation. And why? To encourage the believer in Jesus Christ to seek his face in the scriptures, and to grow in grace because of what he or she sees. The obvious dedication of all the principals to the Bible as God’s Word must not go unnoticed. This is a translation by believers for believers. And precisely because the translators represent various denominations and countries, as well as positions about the role of women in the church, the NIV 2011 has an incredibly strong foundation. The unity that is the NIV produced from such diversity speaks well for the health of the Church today. The translators model what believers are to be like.
> Second, the scholarship that produced this version is excellent, both in text and translation decisions. The textual basis and rendering of difficult expressions in the original are bold features that warrant our gratitude. This is no fly-by-night operation. Unspeakable effort has gone into the production of this version of the Bible, with thousands of decisions being made by individuals and committees, all under the purview of the prime mandate of the CBT. For this, believers everywhere can and should thank God for the NIV, because it is what it purports to be: the eternal word of God in the language of English-speaking people today.
> Third, there are problems with this translation, of course. But there are problems with every translation. Not a single one is perfect, though some are significantly better than others. The New World Translation, because of its strong sectarian bias and downright impossible renderings of the text in many places where the original text contradicts the core beliefs of this group, is far and away the worst translation in English dress. On the other end of the spectrum are some gems, and the NIV 2011 is one of them. Although it is easy for people to become pseudo-informed about Bible translations through the Internet, a far more valuable exercise would be to find a good version and read it. And for readability, the NIV 2011 has no peers. Debates over which translation is better ultimately are a major distraction whose fire the Enemy loves to stoke. As with the handful of other exceptional translations, the NIV 2011 definitely should be one that the well-equipped English-speaking Christian has on his or her shelf, and one that they consult often for spiritual nourishment. Tolle lege!



Here is a somewhat more balanced and less gushing review: http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2012/NIVCombs.pdf

The SBC view? With a reported 16 million members, they have taken an official position AGAINST the NIV 2011: "RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community." http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amresolution.asp?id=1218


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 9, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> My vote: bad!
> 
> Dan Wallace's opinion:
> 
> ...



I saw two bad words.

1. *Zondervan.* (Sorry Harper Collins, but you not only own Zondervan, but you also publish the Satanic Bible and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. …know what I mean?)

2. *positions about the role of women* (The "s" at the end of "positions" bothers me. The Bible should only leave us with one position about the role of women in the church)

Why did you post a positive review?


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 9, 2013)

I was cut off by losing my internet connection. My idea was to show Dan Wallace's somewhat positive review and then list a number of negative ones.

Grudem’s Essay, “Are Only Some Words of Scripture Breathed Out By God?” | For His Renown

Wayne Grudem on the 2011 NIV [03/11/2012] | BACKPACK RADIO|street-level apologetics|

Suzanne's Bookshelf: CBMW will not commend the NIV 2011

Lutherans Latest to Reject New NIV Bible Over Gender Language. With 2.3 million members, the conservative LCMS rejects the new NIV and endorses the ESV for worship.


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 9, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> I did a quick search on the PB and did not find any threads conversing about the topic of the good and bad aspects of the NIV 2011.
> 
> *I thought the general consensus of the evangelical world is that the gender inclusive language of the NIV 2011 makes it not only an inaccurate translation, but a translation that should not be recommended.*
> 
> ...



It may not be the consensus, but it does show it should not be used by Christians.

The arguments against the TNIV are just as valid against the NIV 2011.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 9, 2013)

The Southern Baptist Convention has this to say about the 2011 NIV:

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1218
ON THE GENDER-NEUTRAL 2011 NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
June 2011


WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and

WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and 

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and 

WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and

WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and

WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 9, 2013)

First Timothy 2:12 (2011 NIV) says,
I do not permit a woman to teach or to *assume* authority over a man; she must be quiet. (emphasis mine)

If I am not mistaken, the 1984 NIV reads, "*have* authority." This simple revision opens the door WIDE for allowing women to become elders. If the 2011 NIV becomes a trusted version, a serious blow will have been delivered to biblical complementarianism.

And the foot note for _man_ in this same verse makes an even stronger case for egalitarianism. It reads, "OR over her husband."

As a result of this revision, women can now point to a Bible edited by "trusted scholars" and say, "See? I can become an elder if I am not _assuming_ authority over men. Authority has been _given_ to me by others and not _assumed_ by me. Besides, information is given in the footnote. I can rule over men in the church; just not my husband."

According to BDAG 150 s. v. αυθεντεω this Greek verb means "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to." So, I can see where some people would get the idea for using the word _assume._ But BDAG's idea of _assume_ seems to be a far cry from what the egalitarian movement would have it to be. Assuming a stance is much different than assuming the authority itself.

Such a revision also severely weakens the following verse:

First Timothy 2:13 (2011 NIV)
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Who cares if the ground of Paul's argument is the creation order, if women are allowed to have authority over men other than their husbands as long as it is not _assumed?_ Because Paul intends for his argument in verse 12 to be supported with scripture, verse 13 further supports the wrong end for which he gave it; further bolstering an egalitarian conclusion.

May my words be tested by those more studied than I.


----------



## Zach (Feb 9, 2013)

Bad. It is a shame the translation can piggyback and capitalize on the success of the 1984 NIV.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Feb 10, 2013)

I serve on the Canadian Reformed Committee for Bible Translations. We prepared this report about the 2011 NIV.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 10, 2013)

Guido's Brother said:


> I serve on the Canadian Reformed Committee for Bible Translations. We prepared this report about the 2011 NIV.



". . . we are grateful that there are three alternatives. In the NASB, NKJV, and ESV, all previously approved by General Synods, the churches have trustworthy—and also readily available—translations for use. In the words of Synod 2007, it was decided “to leave it in the freedom of the churches should they feel compelled to use other translations that have received favourable reviews in the reports of the CBT, namely, the NKJV, the NASB or the ESV.”

For those wanting a "modern" translation, you could hardly do better than follow the sage advice that you have given in your conclusion. Even if there might be other sound translations, these are representative of literal and essentially literal translation philosophies. One could not go wrong with any of them. My personal preference for translations would be to add the KJV and drop the NASB, but that is my own idiosyncratic view. 

KJV, NKJV, and ESV ALL read well from the pulpit. Since a huge part of the Bible was written in a poetic genre, it does matter whether the translation captures the literary beauty as part of the translational "accuracy." If the Divine Author chose to use poetic forms in inscripturating his Word, then it behooves the translator to replicate it as well.


----------



## thistle93 (Feb 12, 2013)

Don't get me wrong. I am not a huge NIV fan, especially the TNIV, though I do use NIV 2011 for devotional purposes and I do not see the problems that keep being mentioned as far as gender neutral language is concerned, unlike the TNIV, which clearly had an egalitarian agenda. From what I have read only those words that have the option of being gender neutral are those not translated masculine. All references to GOD are masculine. I have seen the 1 Tim 2:12 passage mentioned before but it would be common sense to be an elder one would clearly have to assume authority over men, unless the church has a misunderstanding of the functional role of an elder. Also word for man in 1 Tim 2:12 can also be translated husband, so I think appropriate to be put in footnote. Now if they put husband in the actual translation and man in the footnote then I would have a problem. Now I know some on the translation team are egalitarian but so also are there some solid reformed/complementarians such as Bill Mounce, Bruce Waltke, Michael D. Williams. Not sure about Douglas Moo but seems to be fairly conservative. Below is a link that explains translation and video with Douglas Moo showing how 2011 is differs from 1984 and TNIV.
http://niv-cbt.org/niv-2011-overview/video-featuring-dr-moo/

Again I am not trying to push the NIV 2011. To me NIV 2011 is not as solid/literal as ESV/NASB but must remember it is a dynamic equivalent translation. Also I am not egalitarian. 
I just think too many people in reformed circles have been critical of NIV 2011 by jumping on bandwagon without actually researching for themselves and just take word of SBC, Wayne Grudem or Council on Biblical Manhood & Woman (all of which I respect).
Also KJVO crowd will always have a bone to pick with any translation other than AV.
Not accusing any on this forum of such, just making a general observation. 

So while NIV 2011 is not my first choice as a translation I do not think Christians should be looked down for reading or using it. This is an area where Christians can disagree. TNIV is another story. 

For His Glory- Matthew


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 12, 2013)

thistle93 said:


> …I do not think Christians should be looked down for reading or using it. This is an area where Christians can disagree. TNIV is another story…



If I found myself looking down on anyone for reading an NIV or a TNIV, I think I would have to repent.

Thus far, I am not convinced that the 2011 NIV is much different from the TNIV—at least from an egalitarian view point. There is clearly an egalitarian agenda with the 2011 NIV.

To be completely honest, I haven't even countenanced arguments in favor of the new NIV (maybe I should). From the get-go, making a gender neutral translation always seemed like a "worse idea" than a 1984 NIV I thought had already gone too far. Functional equivalency interprets the bible. It might sound old-fashioned, but I think interpretations should be sold as commentaries. That is why I think The Message bible should rather be sold as a commentary than a bible. I keep my bible _over here_ and I keep my commentaries _over there._

Don't get me wrong. I occasionally look at the NIV and The Message in the same way I look at commentaries.


----------



## Zach (Feb 12, 2013)

Jack's comment from the other thread is a good point. Many of the people who read the 2011 NIV have no idea about it and simply read it because their Bibles have always been NIV.


----------



## mercyminister (Feb 15, 2013)

I was at Hackman's Bible Bookstore (near Allentown, PA) today and asked about the NIV2011 and how it is doing as far as sales go. It seems that it is not selling well with many past NIV users now going with the ESV. The salesman commented that many people are not happy with the gender-neutral language and "some of the other changes" that have been incorporated in this version.

Personally, I have no interest in even looking at it.

James


----------



## Edward (Feb 15, 2013)

The Southern Baptists appear to be really pushing the NIV. From the Lifeway web site showing various different books available:

Version 

King James - 699
New International - 545
New King James - 259
Reina Valera 1960 - 259
New Living - 245
Holman Christian Standard - 215 
English Standard - 199


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 16, 2013)

It's a solid C- translation. It is not heretical and certainly will not send you to hell, but as one who believes in Verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible, it cannot be my principal translation. It has some egalitarian biases on some verses, but not to the extent as the Tniv did, so I will occasionally read it, but usually if I'm going to lead a small group Bible study where English isn't the first language. And only then, after comparing it to my standard trust worthy translations: esv, NASB, NKJV


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 16, 2013)

jogri17 said:


> It's a solid C- translation… it cannot be my principal translation. It has some egalitarian biases on some verses… And only then, after comparing it to my standard trust worthy translations: esv, NASB, NKJV



So, a translation can have all these problems and still be considered a solid translation?

1. You wouldn't use it as your main Bible.

2. It has egalitarian biases which obviously distorts what God says.

3. It must be compared to other, "more trustworthy" translations, thereby making the 2011 NIV not trustworthy.

An un-trustworthy translation is not a "solid C-translation". Would you agree?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 16, 2013)

By the way, despite the resolution that was passed by the SBC, Life way most certainly does sell the NIV 2011.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 16, 2013)

Edward said:


> The Southern Baptists appear to be really pushing the NIV. From the Lifeway web site showing various different books available:
> 
> Version
> 
> ...



??? Did you read post #7 above? There is a ocean of difference between what the denomination says in its convention and what laypersons, many of them from other denominations purchase in a store. I'm not sure that that constitutes the denomination "pushing" the NIV.

BTW, when I pulled up the web page, it had a HCSB pictured. And, in the list of Bibles available, it had the HCSB featured first. Since that is their translation, it seemed appropriate. 





In the free downloadable guide to selecting a Bible translation, they list The Message as a paraphrase and God's Word and the NLT as "thought for thought." Of the six translations in the "word for word" category, they identify the NIV as the least literal and the NASB and ESV as the most literal.

Where is the evidence that the SBC is "pushing" the NIV???


----------



## Edward (Feb 16, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> Where is the evidence that the SBC is "pushing" the NIV?



1. Lifeway is wholly owned by the SBC. Per the Lifeway website: "All of the LifeWay Christian Stores are wholly owned and operated by LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention" - so the SBC can control what is sold there, and how it is sold. 

2. Lifeway sells over 2000 various styles and types of Bibles - NIV makes up the second largest corpus. It isn't like they are making a questionable translation available for academic purposes. 




DMcFadden said:


> BTW, when I pulled up the web page, it had a HCSB pictured. And, in the list of Bibles available, it had the HCSB featured first.



But let's complete the picture. On the Bibles page, underneath the HCSB Banner, they provide further breakdowns. For categories, the 'Study Bibles' link features NIV. And go a little further down, Bibles by translation, they feature for the NIV the Adventure Bible for children. 

So the subtext of the page is if you a new Christian that wants to learn (use a study Bible), start with the NIV. And if you want one for Children, the NIV is featured. 

So yes, I'll stick with my statement that they are pushing the NIV. They are skilled marketers. Their web page design doesn't happen by accident. And if the denomination really wanted to change things, it could.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2013)

Edward said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the evidence that the SBC is "pushing" the NIV?
> ...



I'm not sure how many sales are made on their website as opposed to their brick and mortar stores, which still do a fair amount of business. They were packed full during the holiday season. They charge you tax on the Lifeway website so there is not much incentive to shop with them online unless you have a coupon that would make it as cheap as CBD, Amazon or one of the Reformed sites. I've only bought one thing there and it was because I had a coupon. When you go into the stores I don't think you'll quite find the disparity that you have on the site. 

They started stocking the ESV before most if not all other stores did. I bought one there in 2002 when only the Hardcover was available. Did that mean they were "promoting" it? They regularly have a good selection on an endcap, so arguably they do! I once saw Sproul's books on the WCF an endcap (the end of the aisle, facing the pathway). Aha! further evidence of a Calvinist hijacking of the SBC! They have basically every ESV edition available in stock, much more than any other store I've visited. I would think that what you have on the website is practically every edition available in the various translations. Given the sheer number of editions, including Study Bibles, that are available in NIV I think that's why you see those numbers. And some of that, especially some Study Bibles, will be remaining NIV84 stock. 

To be sure, $$ has a lot to do with it. It was easy for them to decide not to stock the TNIV since few of their shoppers (who are by no means all Southern Baptists) were likely to be interested in it anyway. Not so with the NIV, which is still the #1 seller despite an erosion in its market share over the last decade. I can hardly imagine any brick and mortar store not stocking the NIV if they expect to stay open very long. Due to its popularity, that's what many will be looking for and many won't be interested in a lengthy conversation about why they should choose another translation and what the problems are with the 2011. Any store that sells to all kinds of evangelicals (as well as some non-evangelicals) will carry the NIV. And they will, at least from time to time, be open to the charge of "promoting" it to one degree or another. 

I hold no brief for the SBC, am not currently a member of a church affiliated with it and was only a member of a SBC church for less than a year. But the way Lifeway is set up, influencing the choice of a Bible translation would probably be seen as more of the preacher's job than Lifeway's although they will help those who ask who have no clue what to buy. I've heard some employees recommend the ESV in those situations.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 16, 2013)

DMcFadden said:


> … they list The Message as a paraphrase and God's Word and the NLT as "thought for thought."…



That's comforting.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 16, 2013)

> So yes, I'll stick with my statement that they are pushing the NIV. They are skilled marketers. Their web page design doesn't happen by accident. And if the denomination really wanted to change things, it could.



My only disagreement is with your word "pushing." The SBC (for which I have no particular affection and am not a member) took a stand against the NIV. "They" stated "their" position.

Yes, Lifeway is owned by the SBC. But, my guess is that it operates like a typical Christian bookstore, selling stuff representing all kinds of positions. As such, they don't have a "position" (unfortunately), merely a mandate to boost the bottom line. Most Christian stores (where they still exist) sell Charismatic, Dispensational, Arminian, and Calvinist materials. Which "one" are they "pushing"? Lifeway sells the NLT and the Message along with just about every translation, edition, and boutique printing. They are "peddling" them all; but in my use of language, they are not "pushing" the NLT or The Message or the NIV.

In this capitalist country, it is rare to find a Christian bookstore that screens its material for theological homogeneity. Unless it is way off the deep end, they will sell it. R.C. Sproul, Jack Chick tracks, Kenneth Haggin, Joel Osteen, John MacArthur, N.T. Wright, Kay Arthur, Rob Bell and more compete for space on the shelves.


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 22, 2013)

I think the new NIV is a big improvement over the old, especially the rendering "flesh" instead of "sinful nature". The changing of the pronoun _him_ to _the one, the person, them_ doesn't bother me in the least and I've actually been refreshed by the changes. I think it makes many passages flow better, in my opinion of course. 

The big issue everyone seems to be up in arms about is the "assume authority" passage which I really yawn at. I read Doug Moo's take on that, that it was specifically chosen to be a neutral phrase and not tip their hat in either direction, and I will go with him over the layman at the SBC convention. 

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a good review I've listed below, much more thorough and balanced (again in my opinion) than the SBC resolution.

http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/BORAM2011_supplemental_translationevaluationcommittee.pdf

Issues involving the NIV 2011 | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 23, 2013)

heartoflesh said:


> The big issue everyone seems to be up in arms about is the "assume authority" passage which I really yawn at. I read Doug Moo's take on that, that it was specifically chosen to be a neutral phrase and not tip their hat in either direction…



It sounds like you are saying you yawn at the idea of a female elder holding an office as a result of interpreting this passage incorrectly because it was specifically chosen to be translated neutrally by the translators.

In other words, do you yawn at the idea of women being in the pulpit because, as you seem to be saying, the translators purposely decided not to choose sides on this issue?

Do you favor women in the pulpit?

I am disappointed to hear from you that the 2011 NIV translators failed to take any theological stand and rather allowed for the scriptures to be bent according to one's fancy. I will have look into this issue a little more. It doesn't seem right.

I wonder what others think of the issue you have raised.


----------



## mercyminister (Feb 23, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> heartoflesh said:
> 
> 
> > The big issue everyone seems to be up in arms about is the "assume authority" passage which I really yawn at. I read Doug Moo's take on that, that it was specifically chosen to be a neutral phrase and not tip their hat in either direction…
> ...



Women in the Pulpit? *ABSOLUTELY NOT!*


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 23, 2013)

mercyminister said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > heartoflesh said:
> ...



If the translators decided not to tip their hat in either direction, and this gives the egalitarians what they want to prove their case, the logic follows that you yawn not only at the neutrality of their position, but the result that gives way because of it. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean about how you yawn at the neutrality.

For what its worth, I did not really think you favored women in the pulpit. I asked a rhetorical question that was meant to show you how *I was* following the logic of your own statement. If I must be corrected, will you share with me how the logic does not follow?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 24, 2013)

Guido's Brother said:


> I serve on the Canadian Reformed Committee for Bible Translations. We prepared this report about the 2011 NIV.



I just want to give a bravo to the Canadian Reformed review of the NIV11. It is balanced, gives the good AND bad, and STILL shows the NIV11 to be questionable, but for the right reasons.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 24, 2013)

heartoflesh said:


> I think the new NIV is a big improvement over the old, especially the rendering "flesh" instead of "sinful nature". The changing of the pronoun _him_ to _the one, the person, them_ doesn't bother me in the least and I've actually been refreshed by the changes. I think it makes many passages flow better, in my opinion of course.



This is a straw man. Most folks don't care that one/person is used instead of "man" these days - the ESV and HCSB use them often.



> The big issue everyone seems to be up in arms about is the "assume authority" passage which I really yawn at. I read Doug Moo's take on that, that it was specifically chosen to be a neutral phrase and not tip their hat in either direction, and I will go with him over the layman at the SBC convention.



There's a LOT more instances of this than just that one. Don't just go over our concerns with a "bah" like this and expect to get away with it. The Canadian Reformed analysis is good in this regard.


----------



## Edward (Feb 24, 2013)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Most folks don't care that one/person is used instead of "man" these days - the ESV and HCSB use them often.


One of the primary drawbacks to the ESV.


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 26, 2013)

I very much enjoyed the Canadian Reformed Report you posted. It is very nuanced and if anything highlights how hard it can be to produce the "perfect" translation. 

I want to just comment briefly on a statement made in the summary.



> Though it was noted that we could accept the rendering of 1 Tim. 3:11, the 2011 NIV translation of Rom. 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:2, as well as the translation of Phil 1:14, 2 Tim 2:2 and James 3:1 were deemed to be problematic. These passages are now either unnecessarily ambiguous or they are misleading in their presentation of who may participate in the special offices of the church.



Leaving aside Rom 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:2 for a moment, the other verses cited are listed as a concern because they include women in a teaching role...

Philippians 1:14
14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.

2 Tim 2:2
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.

James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.


But these verses in no way state where or to whom such teaching should take place. And we do know that women are to teach other women...

Titus 2:3-4
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to *teach what is good.* Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Even granted that the immediate context of 2 Tim 2:2 "concerns the task of teachers of the church", surely it is important to have women clearly communicating such gospel truths to other women in the church, is it not? Shouldn't they be "qualified to teach others" in this regard? And I myself would go beyond this scope to include other laypeople at large in informal settings.


As for Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 2:12, it just seems to me to be splitting hairs over words that "could mean this" or "may possibly mean that" but "we think it is best to translate it this way" and "Al Mohler doesn't approve", in other words, and again in my sole opinion, it doesn't present a great deal of concern for me. Anyone else is free to disagree. 



> There's a LOT more instances of this than just that one. Don't just go over our concerns with a "bah" like this and expect to get away with it.



I'm not trying to get away with anything, I was just answering the OP and giving my brief opinion about why I think the NIV is good, or least not so bad. Look, I don't think it's the best translation out there and it is sure to have it's areas of weakness. I've got a big husky NASB on my nightstand so I can memorize verses like Yoda and I've got a few ESVs lying around so I can read a Greek text trying to act like an Englishman who is worried other people don't believe he's British and is trying really hard to prove he really does like Oasis and eat fish n chips and beans on toast like the best of them. I have an HCSB which I really, really like, but it's just a bit too quirky for me. 

I grew up on the NIV, I was saved reading it, and a lot of it is just engrained in me. So I welcome this revision and I think a lot of the criticism is ultimately unfounded.


----------

