What do you think?
Rate this book
The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy
“The Bible is God’s own Word to us.” Translating the words of God has become an even more daunting task in recent years as the pressure of “political correctness” and various activist agendas have sought to influence the landscape. No issue has become more controversial than genderneutral Bible translations, especially with the release of the TNIV.
Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem examine the translation practice of replacing the generic “he” and the specific “father” with the gender-neutral “they” and “parent” with special attention focused on the TNIV. While translators may be well intentioned in seeking not to offend, Poythress and Grudem contend that the results are subtly changing meanings of the original texts.
The authors seek to build a dialogue that will result in understanding both sides of the gender-neutral controversy and the challenge of producing accurate Bible translations.
Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem examine the translation practice of replacing the generic “he” and the specific “father” with the gender-neutral “they” and “parent” with special attention focused on the TNIV. While translators may be well intentioned in seeking not to offend, Poythress and Grudem contend that the results are subtly changing meanings of the original texts.
The authors seek to build a dialogue that will result in understanding both sides of the gender-neutral controversy and the challenge of producing accurate Bible translations.
528 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
20 people want to read
About the author
Wayne Grudem
123 books335 followersWayne Grudem (PhD, University of Cambridge; DD, Westminster Theological Seminary) is research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary, having previously taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Grudem earned his undergraduate degree at Harvard University, as well as an MDiv from Westminster Seminary. He is the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, a cofounder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a member of the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible, the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, and has published over 20 books, including Systematic Theology, Evangelical Feminism, Politics—According to the Bible, and Business for the Glory of God.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 14, 2024
A VERY DETAILED CRITIQUE OF THE USE OF ‘INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE’ IN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
Authors and professors Very Poythress and Wayne Grudem wrote in the Preface of this 2004 book, “This is new book [sic] consists of two parts. Chapters 1-6 include material that we and others wrote in 2002 in response to the publication of the New Testament in ‘Today’s New International Version’ (the TNIV), and they analyze the TNIV as the most recent and most prominent of the gender-neural Bible translations… In chapters 1-6 we disagree explicitly with other scholars and friends in the evangelical world who wrote in defense of the TNIV, and the chapters show evidence of that clear disagreement… Some people might wonder, ‘Why do you spend so much time arguing about the BIBLE, for goodness’ sake? Haven’t we had enough of such controversies?’ Our reply is that when accurate translation of the Bible is at stake, it is hard to think of anything in the world that is more important to argue about…”
Wayne Grudem warns in Chapter 1, “The TNIV mistranslates the Greek terms ‘huios (‘son’) and ‘pater’ (‘father’), which in their singular form do not mean ‘child’ or ‘parent.’ … Though the TNIV does not yet call God our ‘Parent,’ this claim opens a wide door for calling God ‘Parent’ in Hebrews 12:7 and elsewhere in future editions… If we accept the TNIV in 2002, we should get ready for ‘Our Parent in heaven’ in 2010.” (Pg. 1-2)
He notes, “Soon after the TNIV was released, over thirty-five evangelical scholars … signed a ‘Statement of Concern’ saying: ‘In light of troubling translation inaccuracies---primarily… in relation to gender language---that introduce distortions of the meanings that were conveyed better by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church.’ … Then in June, 2002, over 100 respected evangelical leaders signed a public ‘Statement of Concern’ opposing the TNIV… But the International Bible Society, which owns the copyright and makes the final decision, continues to promote the TNIV.” (Pg 4)
Grudem states, “At times when lay persons have asked me, ‘How can I decide this issue when I am not a Greek and Hebrew expert?’ I have pointed out that the issue is mostly over the meaning of those five words. And if a pro-TNIV scholar challenges them, I suggest that they ask the following questions: ‘(1) Have the Greek WORDS behind these five terms changed since the 1984 NIV? (No.) (2) Have the MEANINGS of those Greek words changed since the 1984 NIV? (No.) (3) So isn’t the real question mostly one of English usage? (Yes.) (4) So I speak English. Are you saying that I don’t know English well enough to make a good decision on this?” (Pg. 24-25)
He argues, “the Bible often points to a single individual as a way of teaching a general truth… The parable of the ‘persistent widow’ (Lk 18:1-8) also APPLIES to men and teaches us all about persistence in prayer, but we should not TRANSLATE it to be the parable of ‘the persistent widow or widower.’” (Pg. 27)
He summarizes, “The heart of the difference can summarized in one sentence: Is it acceptable to translate only the general idea of a passage and systematically omit male-oriented details of meaning that are present in the original Hebrew or Greek text? I have argued … that is it not appropriate to do this, as the TNIV has done.” (Pg. 71)
They state, “The TNIV translation often changes masculine, third person, singular pronouns (he, his and him) to plural gender-neutral pronouns. For example, in Revelation 3:20, the words of Jesus have been changed to… ‘I will come in and eat with THEM, and THEY with me.” Jesus could have used plural pronouns when He spoke these words, but He chose not to.” (Pg. 101-102)
They note, “The NRSV is not the only translation that has moved in this direction. The New Century Version, Good News Bible… The Contemporary English Version, God’s Word… and New Living Translation … all make the same kinds of move.” (Pg. 114)
They assert, “When we criticize a particular translation, it is not because it is bad English, but because it is not the most accurate translation. A writer today has authority over what he or she writes. A Bible translator does NOT have this authority, because the meaning belongs not to him but to God.” (Pg. 119)
On pages 127-140, they present a detailed and helpful “TIMELINE” of events in the controversy.
They point out, “People like James Dobson, Paige Patterson, Jerry Falwell, J.I. Packer, Al Molder, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and others who spoke out on this issue felt very strongly about it for the same reasons: they perceived a threat to the preservation of an accurate Word of God in the English language.” (Pg. 142)
They state, “the male component is omitted in some gender-neutral translations… [In 1 Tim 3:2] The fact that the bishop is expected to be male, which is quite clear in the Greek… has dropped out of the NRSV. Later on in the passage the NRSV uses the pronoun ‘he’ to refer back to the bishop. But since this ‘he’ might be generic, the passage in the NRSV still has no clear indication of maleness.” (Pg. 214-215)
They argue, “Even rather unsophisticated people see … that they must not willy-nilly impose their modern cultural expectations on an ancient document. Then what should translators do to be sure they are sensitive to women readers as well as to men? We should do what we can to express more clearly the meaning of the original through the permissible changes mentioned in Chapter 11. ‘Every man’ becomes ‘everyone,’ and ‘no man’ become ‘no one,’ and so forth. Such changes represent improvements, because they more accurately express meaning. But then we come to a massive number of cases that use a male example as the starting point to express a general truth… This thought pattern is really what generates the resistance, because it runs contrary to the modern concern for balanced attention and equal prominence.” (Pg. 279)
They contend, “If we follow the advocates of gender-neutral translations, how far will we go with the principle of conforming to cultural sensitivities for the sake of avoiding offense?... The gender-neutral translator says, ‘Of course we translate using “Father," because that is necessary for accuracy.’ [But what if they continue,] ‘Surely the MAIN POINT in the Bible’s language about God as Father is that God loves us, protects us, cares for us, gives us wise guidance. Surely we do not want to claim that God is literally of the male sex…’” (Pg. 298)
Of course, the passages they are most concerned about are those that are used by, say, ‘evangelical feminists’ to argue for ‘gender equality,’ etc. (Grudem has written several books critiquing 'evangelical feminism'...)
Authors and professors Very Poythress and Wayne Grudem wrote in the Preface of this 2004 book, “This is new book [sic] consists of two parts. Chapters 1-6 include material that we and others wrote in 2002 in response to the publication of the New Testament in ‘Today’s New International Version’ (the TNIV), and they analyze the TNIV as the most recent and most prominent of the gender-neural Bible translations… In chapters 1-6 we disagree explicitly with other scholars and friends in the evangelical world who wrote in defense of the TNIV, and the chapters show evidence of that clear disagreement… Some people might wonder, ‘Why do you spend so much time arguing about the BIBLE, for goodness’ sake? Haven’t we had enough of such controversies?’ Our reply is that when accurate translation of the Bible is at stake, it is hard to think of anything in the world that is more important to argue about…”
Wayne Grudem warns in Chapter 1, “The TNIV mistranslates the Greek terms ‘huios (‘son’) and ‘pater’ (‘father’), which in their singular form do not mean ‘child’ or ‘parent.’ … Though the TNIV does not yet call God our ‘Parent,’ this claim opens a wide door for calling God ‘Parent’ in Hebrews 12:7 and elsewhere in future editions… If we accept the TNIV in 2002, we should get ready for ‘Our Parent in heaven’ in 2010.” (Pg. 1-2)
He notes, “Soon after the TNIV was released, over thirty-five evangelical scholars … signed a ‘Statement of Concern’ saying: ‘In light of troubling translation inaccuracies---primarily… in relation to gender language---that introduce distortions of the meanings that were conveyed better by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church.’ … Then in June, 2002, over 100 respected evangelical leaders signed a public ‘Statement of Concern’ opposing the TNIV… But the International Bible Society, which owns the copyright and makes the final decision, continues to promote the TNIV.” (Pg 4)
Grudem states, “At times when lay persons have asked me, ‘How can I decide this issue when I am not a Greek and Hebrew expert?’ I have pointed out that the issue is mostly over the meaning of those five words. And if a pro-TNIV scholar challenges them, I suggest that they ask the following questions: ‘(1) Have the Greek WORDS behind these five terms changed since the 1984 NIV? (No.) (2) Have the MEANINGS of those Greek words changed since the 1984 NIV? (No.) (3) So isn’t the real question mostly one of English usage? (Yes.) (4) So I speak English. Are you saying that I don’t know English well enough to make a good decision on this?” (Pg. 24-25)
He argues, “the Bible often points to a single individual as a way of teaching a general truth… The parable of the ‘persistent widow’ (Lk 18:1-8) also APPLIES to men and teaches us all about persistence in prayer, but we should not TRANSLATE it to be the parable of ‘the persistent widow or widower.’” (Pg. 27)
He summarizes, “The heart of the difference can summarized in one sentence: Is it acceptable to translate only the general idea of a passage and systematically omit male-oriented details of meaning that are present in the original Hebrew or Greek text? I have argued … that is it not appropriate to do this, as the TNIV has done.” (Pg. 71)
They state, “The TNIV translation often changes masculine, third person, singular pronouns (he, his and him) to plural gender-neutral pronouns. For example, in Revelation 3:20, the words of Jesus have been changed to… ‘I will come in and eat with THEM, and THEY with me.” Jesus could have used plural pronouns when He spoke these words, but He chose not to.” (Pg. 101-102)
They note, “The NRSV is not the only translation that has moved in this direction. The New Century Version, Good News Bible… The Contemporary English Version, God’s Word… and New Living Translation … all make the same kinds of move.” (Pg. 114)
They assert, “When we criticize a particular translation, it is not because it is bad English, but because it is not the most accurate translation. A writer today has authority over what he or she writes. A Bible translator does NOT have this authority, because the meaning belongs not to him but to God.” (Pg. 119)
On pages 127-140, they present a detailed and helpful “TIMELINE” of events in the controversy.
They point out, “People like James Dobson, Paige Patterson, Jerry Falwell, J.I. Packer, Al Molder, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and others who spoke out on this issue felt very strongly about it for the same reasons: they perceived a threat to the preservation of an accurate Word of God in the English language.” (Pg. 142)
They state, “the male component is omitted in some gender-neutral translations… [In 1 Tim 3:2] The fact that the bishop is expected to be male, which is quite clear in the Greek… has dropped out of the NRSV. Later on in the passage the NRSV uses the pronoun ‘he’ to refer back to the bishop. But since this ‘he’ might be generic, the passage in the NRSV still has no clear indication of maleness.” (Pg. 214-215)
They argue, “Even rather unsophisticated people see … that they must not willy-nilly impose their modern cultural expectations on an ancient document. Then what should translators do to be sure they are sensitive to women readers as well as to men? We should do what we can to express more clearly the meaning of the original through the permissible changes mentioned in Chapter 11. ‘Every man’ becomes ‘everyone,’ and ‘no man’ become ‘no one,’ and so forth. Such changes represent improvements, because they more accurately express meaning. But then we come to a massive number of cases that use a male example as the starting point to express a general truth… This thought pattern is really what generates the resistance, because it runs contrary to the modern concern for balanced attention and equal prominence.” (Pg. 279)
They contend, “If we follow the advocates of gender-neutral translations, how far will we go with the principle of conforming to cultural sensitivities for the sake of avoiding offense?... The gender-neutral translator says, ‘Of course we translate using “Father," because that is necessary for accuracy.’ [But what if they continue,] ‘Surely the MAIN POINT in the Bible’s language about God as Father is that God loves us, protects us, cares for us, gives us wise guidance. Surely we do not want to claim that God is literally of the male sex…’” (Pg. 298)
Of course, the passages they are most concerned about are those that are used by, say, ‘evangelical feminists’ to argue for ‘gender equality,’ etc. (Grudem has written several books critiquing 'evangelical feminism'...)
Displaying 1 of 1 review