Six years after the evangelical world debated the merits and appropriateness of making Bible translations more gender inclusive for words dealing with people, the divide is becoming evident once again.

At issue is the 2011 translation of the New International Version (NIV), which is being released six years after the full version of the 2005 TNIV translation — which never gained wide support — was published. Zondervan later discontinued the TNIV (Today’s New International Version).

Critics said the TNIV’s gender inclusivism went so far that it changed the core meaning of passages. LifeWay Christian Stores refused to carry it.

The latest round of criticism is led by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), the Louisville, Ky.-based group which was a leading opponent of the TNIV.

CBMW, which supports a complementarian position on manhood and womanhood, released a review of the 2011 NIV in late May, concluding that 75 percent of the “inaccurate gender language” it said was in the TNIV remains in the 2011 NIV. The 22-page evaluation did say, though, that the newest NIV includes “numerous commendable improvements” from the TNIV — 933 in all. One example is Genesis 1:27, which now says God created “mankind in his own image.” The TNIV had said “God created human beings in his own image.”

But more than 2,700 of the problems critics identified in the TNIV remain, and because of that, CBMW says it cannot recommend the 2011 NIV. Some of the verses are particularly problematic, CBMW says, including two verses in Paul’s letters which CBMW says leaves room open for female pastors or apostles.

Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation — which translated the new NIV — said there was no agenda in the translation process other than to render a Bible into more contemporary language. The committee did, he said, make significant changes following the controversy over the TNIV.

“Our gender decisions were made on the basis of very careful and significant research … and the decisions we’ve made about gender have no motivation of not offending people,” he told Baptist Press, explaining that the committee used the Collins Bank of English, a database of 4.4 billion words showing how people are speaking and writing. “The motivation, rather, is to communicate clearly to people what we think arguably is contemporary English.”

Much of the debate focuses on translation philosophy: Is it permissible to make the English translation inclusive when the intent and application of the verse is also inclusive? Or should translators stick to the original Greek and Hebrew and let the reader do the interpreting?

One example of inclusive language in the NIV is Luke 17:3, which the 2011 NIV rendered, “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.” The 1984 NIV translated it simply “your brother” with the accompanying words “he” and “him.” Another example is 1 Samuel 18:2, which the 2011 NIV rendered, “From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family.” The 1984 NIV translated it ” … let him return home to his father’s house” — a translation CBMW said emphasizes the role of fathers in Israelite society.

The fact that the 1984 NIV is being discontinued makes the current debate even more significant. Fans of the NIV who disagree with the 2011 NIV translation may have to find a different translation when purchasing a new Bible.

CBMW argues that for centuries, Bible readers have had no problem applying to a wider audience specific biblical passages that focus only on one gender. The danger in the 2011 translation philosophy, CBMW said in its evaluation, is in the translators changing “the meaning and the application of the text in ways that they may not intend or even realize.”

“Our main concern is that in hundreds of places, meaning in the Bible is eroded because of the translators decisions to remove words like he, him, his, father, brother, son, and man,” Randy Stinson, CBMW president, told Baptist Press in an email interview.

Read More