# SBC rejection of the NIV 2011



## matthew11v25 (Jun 16, 2011)

From the Southern Baptist Convention:



> 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.




Baptist Press - Baptist Press News with a Christian Perspective


----------



## T.A.G. (Jun 16, 2011)

wow, didnt expect that


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 16, 2011)

Hmmm, and yet they have no problem selling the Message, which in my opinion is actually much worse. Here is the Lord's prayer in the Message in case you don't believe me.

Our Father in heaven, 
Reveal who you are. 
Set the world right; 
Do what's best— as above, so below. 
Keep us alive with three square meals. 
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. 
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. 
You're in charge! 
You can do anything you want! 
You're ablaze in beauty! 
Yes. Yes. Yes.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 16, 2011)

Interesting bit in the same report:
3:23 p.m. -- Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin is presenting his report. He said that for the first time in its history, seminary enrollment passed 2,700. By comparison, at a low moment during the conservative-moderate battle over the seminary, enrollment had dropped to 585. Asked during Q&A about the controversy over Calvinism, Akin said, "Southeastern has one agenda, and it is called the Great Commission." JC stands for "Jesus Christ," he said, and not "John Calvin."


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jun 16, 2011)

Wow, I did not see this one coming. Not sure how I feel about some of the wording.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 16, 2011)

kainos01 said:


> Interesting bit in the same report:
> 3:23 p.m. -- Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin is presenting his report. He said that for the first time in its history, seminary enrollment passed 2,700. By comparison, at a low moment during the conservative-moderate battle over the seminary, enrollment had dropped to 585. Asked during Q&A about the controversy over Calvinism, Akin said, "Southeastern has one agenda, and it is called the Great Commission." JC stands for "Jesus Christ," he said, and not "John Calvin."



And John Calvin would agree, and disagree with him by saying that he supports missions too, from what I know two missionaries where sent to Brazil from Geneva. But really, it is all about the Triune God, Soli Deo Gloria.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 16, 2011)

I humbly disagree with the SBC messengers. I found a lot of the TNIV inclusive language troubling, especially pluralizing when it was singular in the original (Psalm 1). However, they reverted those changes back in NIV2011, and kept the places where gender inclusivity was appropriate (i.e. "people" for anthropoi, not "men" as in the NIV, i.e. Matthew 6:14-15). Even the SBC's Holman Christian Standard Bible makes these changes. The NIV2011 and the HCSB are not all that different.

I think the addition of William Mounce to the NIV committee, who was a critic of the TNIV, really helped balance the translation. It's problematic when laymen like the messengers in the SBC feel qualified to judge what is proper Bible translation.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Jun 16, 2011)

It strikes me as inconsistent. The issue they have with the NIV2011 is the same with almost every other Functional translation...which are sold in the Lifeway Stores. 

The ongoing criticism of the NIV may knock it out of #1 spot but I have a feeling that the NLT, not the HCSB, would take it's place.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 16, 2011)

Dr. Akin's comments should not surprise anyone because he is not a Calvinist nor is he particularily reformed. For evidence of this, see the website of the church he attends Wake Cross Roads Baptist Church. Dr. Akin is also not an anti-Calvinist, as so many other Baptist leaders are. Dr. Akin is just focused on the gospel, expository preaching, and the Great Commission. Everything else comes second to him, which is why he hires both Calvinist and Arminian professors at Southeastern.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2011)

Where the rubber meets the road will be whether or not Lifeway will carry the NIV 2011. This is basically just a resolution adopted by the Convention but it is not binding on Lifeway. Does anybody know whether or not Lifeway is carrying it now? It was easy for them to decline to carry the TNIV since the 1984 NIV was still in print. 

The NIV is seen as a bigger deal than the other gender-neutral translations like the NLT because the latter isn't recommended for in-depth study, although I'm sure many Christians use it as their main Bible. Neither the NLT nor the Message have threatened to become the #1 bestseller. That's not to argue that the policy isn't inconsistent. There has long been a tug of war with the more theologically minded (whether Calvinist or not) wanting to get rid of Osteen, Meyer and Jakes books vs. the desire to meet consumer demand and the need to make a profit. When the name was changed from Baptist Bookstore (and officially, Baptist Sunday School Board) to LifeWay it represented a shift to want to appeal to a broader base. 

What is also very interesting about this is that this resolution was presented to the resolutions committee, who refused to take it up for whatever reason. (I doubt it was out of a desire to dodge the issue.) The resolution was then presented directly to the Convention, who overwhelmingly passed it.


----------



## JohnGill (Jun 17, 2011)

I'm just surprised people still use the NIV. It's fraught with logical contradictions.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 17, 2011)

Is it typical for churches to even care what the convention says? I grew up in the SBC and none of them knew what the Convention recommended, nor did they care (granted I realize that this could be just a coincidence). Do you think churches will jettison the translation because of this recommendation?


----------



## elnwood (Jun 17, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Is it typical for churches to even care what the convention says? I grew up in the SBC and none of them knew what the Convention recommended, nor did they care (granted I realize that this could be just a coincidence). Do you think churches will jettison the translation because of this recommendation?



When I was attending an SBC church, the pastors would publicly say that they were embarrassed by some of the convention resolutions, specifically the call to boycott Disney. They still supported the idea of making non-binding resolutions in order to take a public stand on issues, though.

Personally, I'd prefer that they not, or at least drastically reduce the number of resolutions they propose. A lot of them are simply not well-thought out, and others are voted on knee-jerk social conservatism, which I don't think ought to be a defining mark of a Christian.

What makes it worse is that the media doesn't understand the autonomy of local Baptist churches and the non-binding nature of the resolutions. They understand the words the president of the SBC as if he were a Baptist pope, and the resolutions as if they are signed legislation.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 17, 2011)

> they were embarrassed by some of the convention resolutions, specifically the call to boycott Disney.



That reminds me. My uncle was removed from the Convention that year because he attended wearing Mickey Mouse ears and some other things that were obviously Disney (I don't remember what they were now). It did not go over well with some there.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 17, 2011)

In 1977, after delivering a sermon as an invited speaker that included an amillennial interpretation of Scripture, the Pastor of the SBC church got up an felt obliged to explain that my views did not accord with the SBC and members were to consider my sermon's content with careful discernment. Many whispered to me at the "thanks and good sermon" handshake exercise afterwards, not a few parishioners whispered to me that they wished they could hear more messages like mine. Sigh.

This experience led me to adopting the practice of always providing a comprehensive statement of faith to my fellow SBC pastors requesting me for potential pulpit supply, tent meetings, pastor conferences, etc.

AMR


----------



## MississippiBaptist (Jun 17, 2011)

Of course, my moniker reveals my denominational background. What I find as surprising is the response on this thread. As a Reformed Baptist I get knocked for always objecting to everything. Seems I'm among friends here. 

Personally, I thought the 2011 NIV resolution was a good call. One can give kudos to another denomination without endorsing their entire doctrinal stance.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 17, 2011)

Yes, as a very recently former Lifeway employee in Pensacola, FL (for the last year, prior to re-entering the pastorate in GA) I can verify that Lifeway does sell the NIV2011, along with Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, John Hagee, and several others who are troubling... The distinguishing marketing/packaging marks are the logo, which is slightly changed, and the gray box (instead of the green one for the old NIV). For those who are on the fence or unfamiliar with it, I would recommend that you review the most recent CBMW report on the NIV2011.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 17, 2011)

I don't think the issue is that they voted to condemn the NIV 2011, the problem is all the other junk that Lifeway has no problem selling. A little hypocritical is all.


----------



## MississippiBaptist (Jun 17, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Hmmm, and yet they have no problem selling the Message



I got it. I'm ITA with the view on Lifeway, they definitely sell things that are heretical. However, the SBC Messengers do not vote on Lifeway's entire inventory. You guys used something 'we' agree with to beat down Lifeway. I admitted above that I do this, much too frequently, as well. Just a heads up!


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jun 17, 2011)

I am a bit confused by this whole thing- are these Baptists at a Presbytery meeting?? Which is more confusing: 

1. Making decisions that no one will listen to in the first place. 
2. Claiming to be Baptists but making decisions using Presbyterian polity? 

I guess jus divinum is more obvious than they thought! :LOL:


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2011)

nleshelman said:


> I am a bit confused by this whole thing- are these Baptists at a Presbytery meeting?? Which is more confusing:
> 
> 1. Making decisions that no one will listen to in the first place.
> 2. Claiming to be Baptists but making decisions using Presbyterian polity?
> ...


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 17, 2011)

To paraphrase, its a Baptist thing, you wouldn't understand. In all seriousness though, that is why we have congregational government so that things cannot be forced upon churches against their will. Even though this was something rather silly, down the road it could be a vote allowing for gay pastors. Thanks to our congregational government, we would be free from that decision just as we are free to buy bad bible translations.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 17, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> To paraphrase, its a Baptist thing, you wouldn't understand. In all seriousness though, that is why we have congregational government so that things cannot be forced upon churches against their will. Even though this was something rather silly, down the road it could be a vote allowing for gay pastors. Thanks to our congregational government, we would be free from that decision just as we are free to buy bad bible translations.



But on the other end, you could have individual churches allowing gay pastors, right? In other words, there is no ecclesiastical body to curb sinfulness. So do not have anyone forcing you to sin, but no one to help prevent it either.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 17, 2011)

You are absolutely right, and there are in fact some non-SBC Baptist churches that do have gay pastors. That is the advantage of having an organization like the SBC. Even though they have no authority over the churches, they do have the power to disassociate with churches who are in serious disagreement with core Baptist doctrine. If a church is an SBC church, you can be pretty sure they will not have gay pastors. I do understand your point that there are some advantages to a more Presbyterian style government, but there are also many disadvantages.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 17, 2011)

nleshelman said:


> I am a bit confused by this whole thing- are these Baptists at a Presbytery meeting?? Which is more confusing:
> 
> 1. Making decisions that no one will listen to in the first place.
> 2. Claiming to be Baptists but making decisions using Presbyterian polity?
> ...



Regarding #2, they're not making decisions; they're making resolutions, which are non-binding public statements, and they serve as recommendations to the churches as well. This is the way Baptists understand the Acts 15 Jerusalem council. 

Regarding #1 ... yep, that sounds about right.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jun 17, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Regarding #2, they're not making decisions; they're making resolutions, which are non-binding public statements, and they serve as recommendations to the churches as well. This is the way Baptists understand the Acts 15 Jerusalem council.



If it is non-binding it seems like a giant waste of church dollars to get together and make suggestions to each other.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 17, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> But on the other end, you could have individual churches allowing gay pastors, right? In other words, there is no ecclesiastical body to curb sinfulness. So do not have anyone forcing you to sin, but no one to help prevent it either.



This is true. If the congregation goes liberal, they can put in a gay pastor, or do whatever they want. But it works both ways too; if the elders, whether in an elder-rule model or a presbyterian model, go liberal, they can force the congregations to accept gay pastors.

Several of the epistles (2Corinthians, 2 Peter, 1 John, Jude, Revelation) warn against false teachers/prophets. I'm much more afraid of the church leadership going liberal and forcing their views on the church than the other way around.

Historically, liberalism has crept into the denominations through the leadership. Hence, the major Episcopal, Presbyterian, Reformed, Lutheran, and Methodist denominations, all of which are hierarchical, have all gone liberal, and the evangelicals in each of those traditions are in split-off denominations. In contrast, the SBC is the largest Baptist body in the U.S. and successfully fought off liberalism.

In the recent gay ordination battle in the PCUSA, this has been true. The General Assembly has been voting in favor of gay ordination for years now, but up until this year, it kept on failing when the individual congregations in the presbyteries voted on it.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jun 17, 2011)

> they can force the congregations to accept gay pastors.



Can they? I was under the impression that all Presbyterian denoms allowed local congregations to pick their own pastor. Thus the denom could not force a congregation to accept a gay pastor. The denom simply allowed congregations to call a gay pastor if they so chose. 

Am I wrong?


----------



## elnwood (Jun 17, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> > they can force the congregations to accept gay pastors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was thinking more of the elder-rule model, in which the elders themselves choose other elders.

I think you're right that in Presbyterianism the congregation chooses their own pastor. However, I believe elders of other congregations in the presbytery exercise authority over the congregation as well, so a congregation could still be forced to be under the authority of a gay pastor.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2011)

elnwood said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit confused by this whole thing- are these Baptists at a Presbytery meeting?? Which is more confusing:
> ...



I really hope "Baptists" don't see the Jerusalem Council as "friendly advice" and "non-binding".

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------




elnwood said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > > they can force the congregations to accept gay pastors.
> ...



Under no circumstances in a Presbyterian system could a Presbytery force a congregation to have a Minister they have not called.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 17, 2011)

A word to my Presbyterian friends,

A Resolution being characterized as merely advice to the churches of the convention is incorrect. You must remember that the Convention is a convention _of churches._ When they gather and make resolutions on any matter, they serve principally as corporate declarations or memorials on that matter. They are significant statements because of the great theological and practical diversity represented in these 40,000 independent churches. Theological or practical consensus of any kind among so many independent evangelical churches is remarkable. 

I'm a Southern Baptist and one of the conventions biggest critics. However, when the largest evangelical denomination in the United States makes a corporate declaration to affirm biblical principles of translation and to denounce those who undermine these principles, I think that's most commendable and I thank God for it.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 18, 2011)

I don't think I like the 2011 NIV. But I wonder if this resolution was truly about affirming good principles of biblical translation or if it was actually more about affirming what's traditional. Are the SBC messengers really educated on the particular issue, or are they likely thinking more broadly—something like "I liked the old NIV and the new one is too different plus it's gender-inclusive which must mean liberal so it's bad"?

I'm not implying I know. I'm really asking the question.


----------



## JohnGill (Jun 18, 2011)

Jack K said:


> I don't think I like the 2011 NIV. But I wonder if this resolution was truly about affirming good principles of biblical translation or if it was actually more about affirming what's traditional. Are the SBC messengers really educated on the particular issue, or are they likely thinking more broadly—something like "I liked the old NIV and the new one is too different plus it's gender-inclusive which must mean liberal so it's bad"?
> 
> I'm not implying I know. I'm really asking the question.



It appears the latter from the following site: NIV 2011 (©2010) | sbcIMPACT

And the following quote from the article linked in the OP: 



> 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



Considering that the NIV opens up the Christian worldview to the reductio ad absurdum by introducing real contradictions, it cannot be that they are "affirming good principles of biblical translation" as you put it. Otherwise they are being self-contradictory.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 18, 2011)

And let's stop confounding what LifeWay does as being what the convention does or vice versa. These two are not the same. They are separate entities. So the convention denouncing one translation while LifeWay has other bad translations on its shelf isn't hypocritical or inconsistent because these two entities are not one and the same.

---------- Post added at 01:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

And let me also strongly protest the ones on this thread intent on doing nothing but finding fault with their brethren in the SBC. Your attitudes are not in keeping with 9th commandment when calling the motives of these messenger into question - Something no man is qualified to do. If you take exception to the resolution itself, then do so on the merits of what's written, but beyond that we should be careful not to denigrate the character of those who supported this resolution. 



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.


----------



## Rangerus (Jun 18, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And let's stop confounding what LifeWay does as being what the convention does or vice versa. These two are not the same. They are separate entities. So the convention denouncing one translation while LifeWay has other bad translations on its shelf isn't hypocritical or inconsistent because these two entities are not one and the same.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------
> 
> ...



hear, hear! Who knows what may now occupy the new “middle ground” where the NIV once stood between formal and dynamic equivalence.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 19, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I really hope "Baptists" don't see the Jerusalem Council as "friendly advice" and "non-binding".



Good question, Ben. The Jerusalem Council advised to abstain from blood, but most Baptists I know don't uphold this as binding. Do Presbyterians think it is? And if not, when did it become no longer binding?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 19, 2011)

Acts 16:4 makes it quite clear the decisions of the Jerusalem Council were binding on all churches.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 19, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Acts 16:4 makes it quite clear the decisions of the Jerusalem Council were binding on all churches.



The Jerusalem Council advised to abstain from blood, but most Baptists I know don't uphold this as binding. Do Presbyterians think it is? And if not, when did it become no longer binding?


----------



## elnwood (Jun 22, 2011)

Douglas Moo, representing the NIV Committee on Bible Translation wrote a response to the SBC resolution:
http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-sbc.pdf

More substantive is his response to CBMW:
http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-cbmw-review.pdf



> Our gender decisions simply reflect what the data are telling us about the state of modern English. Let us say it as emphatically as we can: the NIV translators have never been motivated by a concern to avoid giving offense. We were simply following what wide-ranging, objective research tells us about the state of modern English.



In particular, I think CBMW's insistence to use "fathers" or "forefathers" instead of "ancestors" is particularly blind to modern English usage.



> We object to the "guilt-by-association" labeling of some of our translations. The review notes some renderings in the updated NIV that are adopted also by "feminist" interpreters. Yet they fail to note that many of these same renderings are also adopted by complementarian interpreters. (For instance, "assume authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12 is Calvin's rendering.) The fact that egalitarians and complementarians alike adopt many of these translations suggests that, in fact, there is broad scholarly support in favor of these conclusions.



It's worth noting that not only is Doug Moo a complementarian, but he actually wrote the article "What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?" in CBMW's own book _Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 22, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Acts 16:4 makes it quite clear the decisions of the Jerusalem Council were binding on all churches.
> ...



I know the Greek Orthodox still abstain from blood.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 22, 2011)

I never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but good for the SBC!


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 22, 2011)

A hierarchical church polity doesn't seem to be helping many presbyterian denominations. 

Heresy often comes from above and through the seminaries and is often spread through hierarchical channels.


----------



## sevenzedek (Jun 22, 2011)

HarperCollins doesn't seem to mind publishing the Satanic Bible. Maybe they won't mind if Zondervan (a division of HarperCollins) publishes the new 2011 NIV (flaws or no flaws). Satanic Bible? Yup. Hey, I'm just saying...

This fact just makes a bit uncomfortable. Anyone have anything to say about THAT?


----------

