Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Best-selling Bible to become more gender-inclusive
09.01.2009 4:20pm EDT
The top-selling Bible in North America will undergo its first revision in 25 years, modernizing the language in some sections and promising to reopen a contentious debate about changing gender terms in the sacred text.
The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011.“We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand,” said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.
But past attempts to remake the NIV for contemporary audiences in different editions have been plagued by controversies about gender language that have pitted theological conservatives against each other.
The changes did not make all men “people” or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn’t intend it. So in some verses, references to “sons of God” became “children of God,” for example.
Supporters say gender-inclusive changes are more accurate and make the Bible more accessible, but critics contend they twist meaning or smack of political correctness.
Acknowledging past missteps, the NIV’s overseers are promising that this time, the revision process will be more transparent and that they will actively promote what they describe as a long-held practice of inviting input from scholars and readers.
The NIV was first published in 1978 and more than 300 million NIV Bibles are in print worldwide; its publishers and distributors say the translation accounts for 30 percent of Bibles sold in North America.
The Committee on Bible Translation, an independent group of conservative scholars and translators formed in 1965 to create and revise the NIV, will oversee the new revision.
An effort earlier this decade to create a separate version of the NIV that used more gender-inclusive language in an attempt to reach a younger audience fell flat with groups that felt it crossed the line.
That edition, Today’s New International Version, will cease publication once the new-look NIV is released, said Moe Girkins, president of Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Zondervan, its North American publisher.
“Whatever its strengths, the TNIV has become an emblem of division in the evangelical Christian world,” Girkins said.
It was the TNIV that ushered in changes from “sons of God” to “children of God,” or “brothers” to “brothers and sisters.” In Genesis I, God created “human beings” in his own image instead of “man.”
Many prominent pastors and scholars endorsed the changes. But critics said masculine terms in the original should not be tampered with. Some warned that changing singular gender references to plural ones alters what the Bible says about God’s relationships with individuals.
The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution saying the edition “has gone beyond acceptable translation standards.”
“We fell short of the trust that has been placed in us,” said Danby, of Biblica. “We failed to make a clear case for the revisions.”
Danby said that freezing the NIV in its 1984 state was also a mistake, however. He emphasized that in the revision, about 90 percent of the NIV will be unchanged.
Douglas Moo, a professor at Wheaton College and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, said the group is committed to “a complete review of every gender related change.”
“I am not sure how it’s going to come out,” Moo said. “We have a genuine, authentic review process … Everything is on the table.”
One of the most vocal critics of gender-inclusive translations, Randy Stinson of the Louisville, Ky.-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the group supports updating the NIV. He credited organizers for their openness.
“We’re still probably going to differ on the way they handle some of the gender language,” Stinson said. “But we’re open and anxious to see what they come up with and we’re really going to be reserving judgment.”
Most changes will have nothing to do with gender inclusivity, Moo said. And the TNIV provides a glimpse of likely changes: In the ‘84 NIV, Mary is “with child,” but in the TNIV she is “pregnant.” In the NIV version of Psalm 146:9, “The Lord watches over the alien.” The TNIV used “foreigner” instead of “alien.”
Oh Please, why is this news? who cares what the nutcases are reading?
Until this book, which was written by people who lived with goats and sheep, is updated for 21 century living, I will
never accept it as my book. It has a-lot of good things in it but unfortunetly the pathetic fairy tales are unacceptable as well as the way women gays and others are treated in it. The cristians say one cannot pick and choose in the bible but I will pick and choose until it is written as intelligent truth! No ,the earth is not 4000 years old! Get a grip, bible publishers!
It is a good idea to update fairy tales every now and then. Cinderella should upgrade to from glass slippers to stilletos, little miss muffit would be eating the cottage cheese and jack spratts fat wife would be a Jenny craig success story.
Why is this article even in here? The bible with Even MORE Hatred.
It is unfortunate that LGBT people often respond to homophobic bullying and bigotry by the religious right with anti-religious bullying and bigotry. The fact is that many of us in the LGBT community are Christians and as Christians we do not approve of either homophobic or religious bigotry. Furthermore, using up-to-date language in the Bible also helps us to understand the context of the times in which it was written in order to understand the deep meanings, not the superficial interpretations of the religious right. This article is relevant to us and those who feel it is not relevant to them don’t need to read it.
Wayne M.: Religious bigotry aside, this is just yet another bastardized modernization of the “Authorized Version,” i.e., “King James Bible.”
There have been no new manuscript finds since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and the “latest scholarship” isn’t enough to get Christians to undertake re-translating the whole Bible.
Having said that, who really cares that these people are “updating” a bastardized version of a boring translation of a dreadful book that should be burned totally for having inspired mankind with the most fervid hatred in history?
This has been done before with equally conservative bible translations. Given that the NIV is not a literal translation to begin with, that is, it includes considerable interpretation, it is highly doubtful that this change will have any positive effect. And certainly it will have absolutely no positive effect for the GLBT community. Gender inclusivity is NOT about gender identity and all of the rejections of GLBT will remain. In no way is this any step towards reconciliation with those who support a GLBT inclusive interpretation of the bible.
When many of the people most opposed to LGBT rights are fundamentalist evangelical Christians, it is certainly not irrelevant to report on issues of their world. One of the biggest friendly criticisms of the anti-Proposition-8 campaign was that it demanded to be understood on its own level while not doing enough to address their opponents on their own level as well. If we want to face challenges from our opponents, we need to speak to them in terms they can understand. To do that, we need to understand who they are and how they think. Far from being irrelevant to LGBT news, this article couldn’t be more relevant.
Is everyone who reads the Bible an automatic nut-case? People have a choice to read or to not read the Bible as they choose. This is supposed to be free land where if you want you can read the books that go with your faith or with your lack of faith or any other topic. And even though a church-goping Christian, I fail to see where the desire to read any translation of the Bible is relevant to the task of bringing “real” gay news to the readers. I am nore interested in learning of was it happening with gay rights and progay laws and if those rights and laws are increasing or decreasing and/or in danger of repeal than I am in some Bible when I read what is supposed to be gay news.
If a Bible is being talked about, I prefer to go to a site that dedicated to talking about not news of the day but about faith and the Bible. All we get here are people holding up the Bible and faith to needless ridicule when this space is supposed to be dedicated to real everyday gay news.
To be perfectly honest, I any translation of the Bible is an interpretation. There is no such thing as a truly literal translation simply because the words do not have exactly the same meanings in different languages.
I find it bizarre that Christians have the gall to cite scripture for their beliefs when the vast majority do not understand Hebrew or Greek, the languages the book was written in.
Wayne M.: People are inherently defensive when they believe that their lives are under attack, and they are inclined to act just as irrationally.
Wow, it’s really a boring day at work or I wouldn’t be reading this tripe. I’m still amazed at those who were brainwashed to believe all this nonsense. Worse, amazed at those who STILL believe in this crap.
Not once have I ridiculed atheism or atheists. I have always treated non-believers and believers alike with equal respect. Everyone is on their own journey in life and living life as they best understand it.
All I am going to say is I have been the atheist route and it did not work out for me. I have found out that (speaking just for myself) that Sunday morning just does not feel like a “real” Sunday morning to me if I don’t go to church that day. I miss the fellowship of a church and of the weekly renewal and refreshment of shifting gears, slowing down and getting away from the cares for a few hours of the ordinary routines and must dos of the week when I don’t go to church. Sunday is also for me a day when peace and quiet and not noisy lawnmowers etc. reign at my home. (I use the rest of the week in the cooler parts of the day for that as some rely on Sunday morning to catch up on sleep, church, or just chilling out at home and I respect keeping Sunday quiet at my home also for those reasons). A place where like my church where anger, profanity and ridicule are not heard for a few blessed hours.
And the people at my church would be respectful of atheists.
It’s not the nature of some liberal Christians whom I personally know to disrespect others for no faith at all. We would simply say that everyone is on their own path, their own way. And BTW, not all of us church goers believe that the earth is only 4,000 years old.
Yes, when Christians bash gays, Christians deserve to be bashed back.
I recently acquired this belligerent of an attitude; it was first triggered by the conservative Episcopalians and the Unitarian’s reaction to the Episcopalian’s decision to allow gay clergy. Proposition 8 is what really took my attitude toward Christians over the edge.
I really do not understand why ANY gay person would EVER want to be a Christian.
I used to care that the Episcopalians accepted gays; now, with the way that the Anglicans and the conservative Episcopalians treat the liberal Episcopalians I don’t see the point.
As far as I am concerned, it would be better for Americans if all of the Christians would go to their own hell and rot.
Funny that you would bring up the liberal and moderate Christians: I don’t see them ANYWHERE publicly defending gays. The UCC did for a little while with their TV commercials — that the gay hating TV networks refused to air.
When are they going to take out the parts that says that they are supposed to hate gays?
secrity: There’s no parts of the Bible that say people are supposed to hate gays.
Hating gays is something that comes up in the interpretation; it’s not in the text itself.