Is the NIV a "Woke" Bible Translation?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2023
- NOTES & RESOURCES
AUDIBLE: Souls: How Jesus Saves Sinners - amzn.to/3VT7wN9
(1) MY CHURCH
Gospel Fellowship PCA - / @gospelfellowshippresb...
Gospel Fellowship PCA Website - www.gospelfellowshippca.org/
Gospel Fellowship PCA Podcast - anchor.fm/gospelfellowshippca
(2) PODCASTS
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/69gAA8c...
Listen on Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
(3) NEWSLETTER SIGNUP FORM share.hsforms.com/1EJQ1EYQrTd...
(4) MY BOOKS:
Souls: How Jesus Saves Sinners - amzn.to/3f233s6
Holy Living: Jonathan Edwards's 70 Resolutions - amzn.to/38fl4vX
Hold Fast the Faith: A Devotional Commentary on the Westminster Confession - amzn.to/3Bco9cI
Unknown: The Extraordinary Influence of Ordinary Christians -
amzn.to/38hiQwg
The Lord and the Rings: Bible Study and Counseling Guide
amzn.to/3DkVtA8
(4) SOCIAL MEDIA
Twitter - @matt_everhard
Instagram - matthew_everhard
Telegram Channel - t.me/MatthewEverhard
Email Me: doctor + everhard (all one word) at gmail dot you know
(5) APPAREL
Be a Radical Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
Edwards Homeboy Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
Get a Job Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
33-Point Calvinist Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
Spurgeon Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
Sing the Psalms Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
Warfield Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
Edwards Scholar Shirt - cassidycraftcorner.com/produc...
(6) MY STUDIO & BACKGROUND
Panasonic Basic Camcorder - amzn.to/3vR48sV
Logitech Webcam - amzn.to/3ynqRds
Studio Ring Lights - amzn.to/3jgYQjB
Edwards Resolutions Poster - www.missionalwear.com/the-res...
Note - this channel contains affiliate links.
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd be interested to hear Dr. Bill Mounce's take on this since he served on ESV and NIV translation teams. I preach from the NIV because it is what most of my people have already. My goal is to have them with their bibles open during the sermon and following along. There are several times I will point out where I think another translation captures the meaning more accurately. Sometimes the ESV captures it better sometimes something like the CEB does to my surprise. All editors make interpretive decisions at some point. The best thing for clergy and laity is to read form multiple translations, steer mostly away from single editor translations, and consider tools to look at original languages. Thanks for the video Dr. Everhard.
One of the best comments here.
I believe he said in the video that the 1985 NIV translation was a suitable translation but the 2011 NIV raised some questions on why they translated certain passages in a gender neutral way. From my observation, the 1995 NASB translation does a similar transition when being compared to the 2020 NASB. When comparing the 2 translations (the 1985 NIV vs 2011 NIV) he raises some very good points. I think that a pastor is in his position to lead his flock through prudence and discernment on such issues like this. Researching proper Bible translations might be frivolous to some, but it is important to guide people so that they may not be confused when interpreting the scripture. With such logic as yours, then the Message translation would be a suitable translation for the layman, as long as you have multiple translations to also work with in conjunction with the Message. I believe it would be far more fruitful to avoid certain translations all together, especially if it is altered for invalid reasons.
@@haiasinosdnah0813searching for a better translation is certainly commendable. If he stuck to that this would have been a good video. He showed valid translation points. Unfortunately, he presumed to know the intent of the translators claiming they did not want to offend women. That was wrong.
When Mounce came to talk at Corban University on his 2011 NIV he was taken aback when asked for a show of hands in the audience how few of the students were using the NIV2011. In the breakout session he gave red herring answers for the rationale for making the 2011 gender neutral, trying to say it was done so that the 21st century readers would have better clarity in understanding the Bible. But it is obvious that they made the 2011 gender-neutral in order to capitulate to the culture, rather than the scriptures rebuking gender-neutral nonsense. He claimed it was done to give clarity to the English reader, but it actually does the opposite.
I use the NIV 2011 as my main Bible and so I contacted the folks at NIV "Hi Brandon. Thanks for reaching out with your question on the use of "weakling" vs. "women" in Jeremiah 51:30. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, women were considered weaker and they did not become soldiers or fight in conflicts. Our own culture today, with women participating in armies around the world, demands a different word to get the same idea across: hence “weaklings.” The NIV balances both accuracy and meaning to provide a translation of the Bible that is clear and understandable to today's readers. I hope this helps answer your question."
Exactly. The Scriptures were not stating that the soldiers of Babylon would literally develop breasts and vaginas. The point was that they would be weak like women in comparison. This is a "dynamic equivalence vs literal" issue, with the dynamic equivalence does translation work for you (right or wrong). This isn't a woke issue.
@@bradh8448No, it's an issue where the translator is becoming too much of an interpreter, telling what the original means vs. what it actually says.
@@sbs8331 "Too much"? Where exactly is that line for you?
@@sbs8331 This is well said. Christians do not understand this. Especially those who love the NLT. It is a paraphrase. They call it a "translation" rather than a paraphrase for $$$. There is big money in the best selling book (Bibles) each and every year.
When the NIV does its thought-for-thought - automatically there becomes a huge burden on the translators. Did they accurately convey the meaning. Like if you gave my a sentence and said, paraphrase this for me. I may not get it perfect each and every time. A word-for-word is a much easier burden on the translator.
@@bradh8448I can't speak for the other guy, but deciding how to render a word or phrase that could reasonably be a rendering of the original is fine. I don't think translators should completely change the words used. If the NIV wants to, fine, but that's paraphrase, not translation. I feel like the NIV's point isn't good because they've actually changed the word used. They should have kept the original "women" and left the context of how "woman" was used in that culture to the preachers, as that's their job.
My wife and I came to faith reading the 1984 NIV translation. I was sad when they made the 2011 update without make it clear to people and then made 1984 edition no longer available. In Seminary, I changed to 1995 NASB, and now I preach from the LSB. However, my wife still likes reading her 1984 NIV. She found an old one at church but is deciding what she is going to when that Bible wares out. At this point, I think the NLT is better than the NIV. I always encourage people to move to a word for word translation like the LSB, ESV, and NKJV.
The NASB95 and LSB are phenomenal. For laid back reading I'll do the CSB or NLT (for relaxing, not for study). I also love the Tree of Life version.
It is unfortunate they cancelled the 1984 due to cancel culture. And after promising it wasn't going anywhere when they came out with the dreaded TNIV which is even worse than the 2011. Perhaps they felt they found a happy middle ground with the 2011 but they thought wrong. Maybe the NKJV will stick around as there is pressure for them not to update it. Or you can use a version that is in the public domain.
CSB is great. and yes...NIV 1984 is fave.
I love the NASB, I want a LSB, doing to get one very soon, I love reading MY GODS NAME YAWEH keeping literal terms
I have found the 1984 NIV readily available on eBay from many different sellers. They're listed with the Bible's condition, some pictures, and the date of publication etc.
Only people who do not understand translation assert word-for-word translation is better.
While I've never studied ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek or Aramaic, I have studied
1) Latin,
2) French,
3) Mandarin Chinese and
4) Japanese.
Whenever I hear people insist word-for-word translations are a "gold standard" in translation - it is not. If you think this, I would bet that you have never achieved even an intermediate level of fluency in a second modern language.
A simple real-life example:
I was stationed in Japan in the Navy, and one of my collateral jobs was as PR Officer for my ship, USS St. Louis.
On the 20th anniversary of our ship's launch (its "birthday"), I remember our Captain wanted a "Happy Birthday St. Louis" banner in Japanese to hang on the side of our ship. I said I would go to one of our base's native Japanese speakers to translate it.
My Captain was furious at me and insisted I do a word-for-word translation myself, which, of course his being my Commanding Officer, I did. I cracked open my English-Japanese dictionary and did what my Captain ordered.
In Japanese, word for word that would be translated as "Shiawase tanjoubi Sainto Ruisu," which is gibberish in the Japanese language. It's just not something anyone would ever say. But we made the banner, and the Japanese people who saw it just scratched their heads, not knowing what to think but, "Crazy Americans."
Deep religious discussions, poetry, politics and philosophy are far, far harder than translating "Happy Birthday," and the modern United States has far more in common with modern Japan than we have with ancient Israel or ancient Greece.
Even a translator well trained in a particular ancient language is likely to make great errors when operating independently of a board. Take, for example Bart Ehrman: It is simply the case he is vastly more likely to get at an errant meaning than would be the case if he was working with a board of scholars working together.
It is very, very hard to translate modern languages faithfully. Imagine how hard it is to translate with a 2000 to 4000 year difference, as Biblical scholars have to do it. Not only do we not know the language, we don't know the social context, cultural context - and a million other things that affect accurate translation.
This is why the NIV, ESV and other Bible translations that use oldest reliable sources in original languages (i.e. unlike the KJV, they are not 92% ripping off the Tinsdale Bible) use large teams, and fiercely debate changes before implementing them.
Bart seems to have made a successful career giving the world dubious translations, because he can get away with it as he puts himself as an independent authority. He can do this because we are so ignorant of how hard it is to translate very different languages from very different times and culturs. Bart Ehrman is a board of one, and so he is not responsible to anyone but himself. But your Bible likely is translated with a large team, all keeping themselves honest, and relying on two millenia of experiences of other translators.
Anyway, word-for-word translation is bad translation. We are far, far better served by experienced boards of translators and historians doing this work for our benefit, and focusing on what we can do well - i.e. read the Bible thoroughly, thoughtfully and frequently.
Thanks for this comment. As someone who has learned just ONE foreign language, I understand -just a bit - some of the difficulty of translating ideas into different linguistic forms. Depending on your communicative purpose and your audience, a word-for-word Bible translation may not always be the best choice.
良く言いましたね。ありがとうございます。
You've certainly put some great effort into understanding and adhering to the Word of God. I'm curious to know, do you think that if someone is only exposed to the NIV, would they be able to have and maintain a fulfilling relationship with Christ? Eager to hear your response if you happen to see this. God bless you.
Have you done a video on the NLT version the 2015 update? Would you say it is more literal than the NIV 2011? Because in these verses, NLT still translate as women. Thanks for the video.
I used to bounce around translations quite a bit early on in my walk.
These days I tend to stick with just a handful and switch / rotate everytime I finish a reading plan. LSB, ESV,
KJV / NKJV
I cannot look away of your bookshelf library, are you gonna update your books, and showing your library?:) maybe give some recommendation aswell... love your youtube ministries
I recently found the first Bible I ever purchased. It has a copyright date of 1978 and by New York International Bible Society. It was published by Zondervan. I heard you say that you thought the 1984 edition was a good edition. Is my 1978 edition as good as the 1984 edition? I would like your thoughts on it.
I also have a '78 edition of the NIV that I used for many years, and I'm pretty confident that the differences between it and the '84 are quite minimal. I also used an NIV84 edition extensively and never noticed whatever differences there may have been.
I started with a NIV11 when I came to Christ because my dad had the 84 but neither of us knew 2 years back that their had been the change til we realized it wasn't matching up. Found out about all the gender neutral language and other issues. After looking into other translations I switched to ESV. I also use a KJV at times but ESV to me is the best. It's very true word for word while kinda using the KJV Elizabethian with updated language which makes it flow beautifully. It's just the best I have found and I've looked into most of the English translations.
The NKJV is much closer to the KJV with updated English and correcting some of the extremely odd translation choices in the KJV.
Yes it uses Textus Receptus while ESV uses critical text, so lots of deleted passages.@@BloodBoughtMinistries
I’m 28 years old & use the NKJV.
Just my 2 cents here, to a modern reader, “weakling” is a more understandable translation.
(1) NOT because “women” would be offensive but because (2) woman are no longer looked at as weak.
But then isn't the translator becoming too much of an interpreter, telling what the original means (at least in his own mind) vs. what it actually says?
women are weak though. thats why they keep losing their sports to men who wear dresses.
@@sbs8331Many, probably most, Greek and Hebrew words do not have exact equivalents in English, so translators always have to make interpretive choices whether they are aiming for a literal translation or a dynamic equivalent.
@@jimmu2008 I agree, but so often a dynamic equivalent approach goes too far. Example: The '84 NIV almost always translated "walk" as "live" in the NT. The 2011 still does it some, e.g. Gal 4:1, where "walk in a manner worthy" becomes "live a life worthy". A close friend who's been a Bible translator his whole career said that the NIV paraphrase loses the implication of progress toward a goal. One can "live" stagnantly without getting anywhere, but "walk" implies movement and progress, and that picture is lost with the NIV's (unnecessary, in my view) interpretive rendering. Yes, a rigid literalness is impractical, but it just seems to me that dynamically equivalent translations too often stray from translation to interpretation when it's not called for. I sometimes consult the NIV, NLT, et al. in my studies and find them helpful, but this tendency prevents me from using them as my primary translation. Blessings.
@@sbs8331 Good points. This is why I think it's ideal to read more than one translation. Most will not, of course. I struggle to find time to read even one.
I've watched a couple of your bible reviews and enjoy them. I got saved in 1979 in a Wesleyan church. A year later we moved away and found a Nazarene church near bye, which is similar in beliefs. Over the years we've had pastors that preached from the KJV, NKJV, and NIV bibles. So, I have all three and access to many others in electronic format. I'm happy that both of my NIV bibles copywrite dates are 1983. Both are Thomson Chain-Reference Bibles, and one is in large print as I'm now 68 years old.
So, I'll take the dissenting position in this debate.
First, we have to be careful in our assumptions. To say that the NIV translators chose a particular word to avoid "offense" with out evidence is disingenuous and risks creating a strawman against the NIV.
Second, as we all know, language changes over time. In the past, because of their physical limitations, women were seen as weaker, so it made sense to make the association that the older texts did, especially where swords and spears were concerned, but that concept loses some of its punch with the introduction of modern weapons. Now, a woman can easily be as deadly as a man in battle if not more so depending on her position; it only takes a finger to push a launch button. So, the idea of using "women" as a pejorative falls flat on modern audiences because the connection is now obscured in the 21st century, and the NIV is reflecting that change. Afterall, the goal of any good translation is intelligibility.
I appreciate the NIV's desire to clarify the term for people, and I am equally grateful for the multiplicity of translations so we can get a well rounded understanding of what the original authors meant :)
@michaelanderson1067
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are assuming I was referring to evangelical translations only. I am open to seeing what other Christians believe about certain issues, even if I ultimately disagree with them. One of my good friends is Orthodox and we have engaging conversations.
My point about multiple translations is that there is not always a word for word equivalent between languages and reading multiple translations helps one see the lexical range of a given term/phrase.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with your assumption that modern committee based translations are biased. For sure there are some like the JW's NWT, which purposely distorts the deity of Jesus by abusing the Greek, but we can see that because we have ancient sources to compare.
A very good and reasonable take. I think that in this case and many others criticisms of individual decisions in the NIV fail ultimately to recognize that the NIV is trying to convey the same idiomatic *meaning* of a passage, not the same words. Critics act like the NIV is trying to be word for word and then criticize it for not being that
What are your thoughts on the NLT?
Thank you for this video. I started my Christian walk reading NKJV and transitioned to NIV. I do flip back and forth between the two and will continue to do so. Have a blessed day!
Controversial opinion - the NIV actually does a better job here (for modern audiences) than the literal translations. In my environment (a undergraduate student in the Uk) it’s not offensive to call someone “a woman”, the response would be “and that’s a bad thing because…?” But if I called someone a “weakling”, then we’d see some sparks fly!
Therefore the NIV11 actually preserves the insulting nature of the Hebrew better than the KJV/LSB/ESV for (most) modern English speaking audiences. Unless of course you have bible study notes or cultural background commentary to understand what it actually meant to call someone a woman, in which case I concede. But the majority of Christian’s sadly don’t have or regularly use such resources 😢
You don't get it. In these passages the NIV omits "women" all together, so you would never associate women with weaklings, which is what the author intended. Image an army of women vs. men in hand to hand combat. That is the biblical sitz im leben we're talking about. Women are weak in comparison to men.
I'm as conservative on this issue as the next guy but just devil's advocate here: Couldn't someone argue that they changed it to weaklings to clarify what was meant by "like women" since what NIV does everywhere is paraphrase and explain terminology in that same way? I imagine if they were acting in good faith and non-maliciously they were probably having a talk about narrowing down what could be meant by "like women" and doing the interpretive work for the reader, as they do throughout the NIV, like "what is meant by 'like women'" "it means weak" (same interpretation as you or I would give) "ok then let's put that in"
"to clarify what is meant"...therein is the problem. Too much of what is meant and too little of what the original actually says.
@@sbs8331 yeah but that's the philosophy of the type of translation they're doing, which is a separate argument from whether they're maliciously changing the text with political motives
Is the NIV a fully woke translation? No. Is the NIV a translation that’s sole focus is presenting an accurate English text of the original manuscripts without any modern cultural bias? Also no.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Of course they are Trinitarian. The entire Church has been since it's foundation. The earliest Christian writing we have ever found (the Didache) is from the early first century and teaches baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (straight out of Matthew).
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Mat 28:19
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Uh, you can't be a Christian without being Trinitarian.
its interesting how the NLT translates these verses....it retains the word women to describe the weaklings....don't know...but even a thought for thought translation such as the NLT uses women in these passages.....honestly...the more I have used the NLT the more I like it.....especially in a Africa where english is sometimes a second...third or fourth language...
why did the NIV 2011 add the ending of paragraph 5:21 to the beginning of 5:22 in Ephesians and change the meaning all my other translations Nasb95 Esv Lsb nkjv and Niv 1990 split Ephesians 5:21 an 5:22 ...it seems like the niv is missleading at times compared to my other translations
Pastor Matt, like you I am not woke and agree that men are generally physically stronger than women (although I am not sure how I’d do pregnant for 9 months - thank God as a man it’s impossible and thus not for me to worry about - but i digress), but i don’t actually think the word choice here is about gender more than it is about the idea the author is trying to convey which I think the NIV actually gets more right than a “Word for word” translation despite that the Hebrew word translated is “women.” Surely the phrase “… be like women” is trying to convey a common-place expression unique to Hebrew speaking people peculiar to that time - in this case weakness or weakling. Somehow trying to convey “…be like the female anatomical and biochemical structure” doesn’t fit the context quite right, right? The issue with the “word for word” concept is that its a misnomer at best and misleading at worst. In my experience, language (even different dialects within the same language) doesn’t translate that cleanly. WfW translations depend heavily on the readers understanding of historical context and often local uses of language. I suspect the average reader (myself included) generally wouldn’t know how words idioms, word choices, etc. I like that a team of scholars took a structured approach with checks and balances to study that stuff and present the ideas the original authors endeavored to convey.
The ESV does something similar in relation to headcoverings in 1 Cor 11.
Hi, I' am an American whose busy memorizing the entire book of Revelation. I will be performing the book live on stage at some point. When the NIV became semi-woke in 2011 I stopped memorizing solely in that version. At that time I had already filmed the first 5 chapters of the book in the 84 version, and decided to start memorizing other books of the N.T. Now, I'm back memorizing the book of Revelation, but with an entirely new perspective. I'm now looking at each verse from chapter 6 onward, and memorizing it in a version that suits the verse.... especially in a dramatic form. Whoever may read this.... please keep me in your prayers on this vast project. Yes, some translations are a bit off when it comes to gender and other things. I would suggest the normal Christian to stick with the NASB, ESV, or NKJV if genuine bible study is your goal. These days there are other versions out there that are also rather conservative. You can check them all out online. Someone here mentioned the NLT version. That version is also a bit messed up on the gender issue, but otherwise it's a good read. That version has been changed many times since it came out in 1996. There is a 2004 edition, 2011, and so on.... I'm actually using each of those editions in different places, in my Revelation drama. For clarity and sheer power.... I think the first 1996 edition is the best, if you can still find it. One rare version I'm also using is God's New Covenant New Testament Translation: It's an English/U.K. translation by Dr. Heinz Cassirer, published in 1989. He was a Jewish Oxford Prof who got saved at 49, and years later wrote his own version using the Hebrew as a guide.... along with the Greek etc. Sometimes he says it spot on like no other version I've found. He is also true on the gender issue. You must read his story on Wiki. I hope this helps you all. God bless.... from sunny South Africa. ( Check out my channel, and my original music - cheers! )
My own denomination, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod hates the NIV 2011 and has advised its congregations not to buy it. We are having problems finding a new tranlation we like. I was promoting going back to the KJV but people think I'm crazy.
I understand that the Lutherans have their own translation, the Evangelical Heritage Version.
Could you confirm if that is so?
I agree that you are crazy if you want to go back to foreign language version of the Bible, aka KJV. I am against using any "translation" that has a man's name in the name of the translation.
@@arkansasrebel348 Are you referring to a specific translation or a study bible?
NIV is the first English translation that I've read when I got exposed to Christianity a decade ago. I thought it was so readable and the translators did a great job. However, as years went by I find the NIV translation a little bit skeptical since some places are like 'overly' paraphrased so now I transitioned to NASB (1995) and ESV.
Read the MEV or NMB instead. They are more accurate and readable than the NASB or ESV
My 1978 NIV does not use 'weaklings' in the verses you referenced, it uses 'women'. I certainly don't know what happened to cause this change, but something did affect the versions. That is why I think any NIV after the 1978 version is never going to be in my small collection of God's Word.
My 1984 NIV also uses 'women' instead of weaklings.
I don’t know, Matt, how do you think Douglas Moo would respond to this critique? He has responded multiple times on the gender question for the NIV, with what seems like a fair answer, stating that he and the majority of the NIV translators are complementarians‘, and their purpose in the NIV is to create a translation that not just American. English speakers can understand well, but, Indian and African and British, and all other types of English speakers can understand well. For example, he has discussed the transition from “men” to “men and women“ as a necessary and reasonable change, because not all English speakers today understand men to often include both genders when addressed. I think it’s reasonable to say that not all cultures in the world that use English would understand the phrase “like women” two mean, weak or poor warrior, it very well could be understood to apply a changing appearance, I’m not sure, but it seems like a reasonable change to me.
Therein lies the problem I believe in that we don't try to adapt to the Bible but rather try to get the Bible to adapt to us.
This "confusion" can be addressed by a footnote explaining the word _men_ is to be understood as _men and women_ , just as the ESV provides a footnote for δούλος (slave).
These are good points, especially with reference to those where English is secondary. The the world of global Bible Translation, source texts and resources are greatly limited by copyright issues. Copyright follows translations and therefore permission must be given to be used as a source text. NIV 84 is one of the English versions that has given permission and is the most widely used in Africa (where I assisted in the translation ministry). They do not see footnotes in the ESV. The key to good translations is fully understanding the source text. One the wide spectrum of English versions, from literal to dynamic, NIV falls in the middle. Instead of trash talking English versions (being blessed with an abundance) maybe be more concerned with the thousands of languages that have zero verses in their language.
I don't think it's a reasonable change. I think it's an impious adding to the scripture.
Who cares if someone is insulted? Who cares if i am insulted? The truth hurts sometimes, but its the Truth that makes you free.
I think the point may be missed here due to a negative presupposition towards the NIV.. I think the woman/weaklings issue here may be due to the NIV translation emphasis for translating the meaning of metaphors and idiom, not because they are trying to be "less offensive".
Daniel Bomberg, ed. Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, 1524-1525, Venice
The second Rabbinic Bible served as the base for all future editions. This was the source text used by the translators of the King James Version in 1611, the New King James Version in 1982, and the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible in 2005
I was saved reading NIV, like most quickly moved to a different translation. Now I’m on ESV.
Still read and refer to the 84 NIV, NKJV and the LSB. Great reference combination imho.
Hey Pastor Matt, thanks for the video.
I appreciate your charity in not pegging the NIV as a woke translation.
I respectfully disagree on your position, however, due to (what I think is) a wrong assumption: the NIV CBT we’re trying to make an offensive passage less offensive for their audience.
I think this is a wrong assumption to make because…
1) No where in their preface or NIV website do they say they try to make offensive passages easier for the modern audience. Take for example 1 Pt. 3:7 where wives are explicitly called the “weaker partner” rather than “weaker vessel.” Why? Because while the underlying Greek gloss is “vessel,” the CBT stuck to their guidelines and translated the meaning.
2) In these passages referenced above the clear meaning of the passage is that they became “weaklings.” Most if not all of the feminine pronouns in the NIV were retained in these passages. The feminine imagery was retained as far as it could, according to the NIV’s stated translation policy in the preface and on their website. To translate that “they became like women” invites a modern reader (who has little and ever decreasing biblical literacy according to the studies that have come out) to misunderstand/misinterpret the passage.
That being said, I would SO be in favor of more translators footnotes or for a “pastor’s edition” with significantly more footnotes (30-35k as opposed to 8-10k presently).
3) lastly, it seems like you are imposing your own view of what a translation ought to be rather than evaluating it first on the basis of their stated goals and guidelines.
Based on what the CBT set out to do, I agree with Don Carson that they have accomplished a very accurate and readable mediating translation.
But like I stated above, I would have greatly preferred for them to add more footnotes to aid in transparency to the original text like the NET. The issue with the NET is that it’s very new and came into the field when there already were a large number of mediating translations out there. If the NIV produced a set of notes like the NET (really if every major translation did this) then it would greatly benefit the church, I believe.
Anyways, love your channel and continue to watch! Thanks brother! God bless
in Jeremiah 51:30, in the NIV 1984 version the word "women" is used.IMO, Zondervan needs to publish the 1984 version again.
Thank you, Brother Matthew⭐🌹⭐
This is very good information, thank you.
The NIV of 1984 or earlier as not a translation but more a paraphrase, but it was ok as such. The latest NIV is a much poorer paraphrase.
In my opinion “weaklings” is a good rendering. Based on the NIV’s translation philosophy.
If you wanted to insult a man by calling him a woman what exactly would you be trying to communicate? The man is weak. At least in this context, but think of all the other things it could mean today. Anything from emotional to transgender.
I’m more of a formal equivalence fan myself however, someone has to interpret the text. Weather it’s you or a team of scholars.
Example: In Amos 4:6 the ESV says God gave them “cleanness of teeth” Most people would think that’s a good thing.
The CSB translates it as “I gave you absolutely nothing to eat” (which is why they had clean teeth. No food)
In this case the more dynamic rendering was more helpful for me personally. I would have likely misinterpreted the text or gave little thought to what was going on if I were just reading through on a lunch break at work.
To the original point I think rendering “woman” as “weakling” in these cases helped with clarity. Especially for those who might be new to scripture, or lack understanding of context.
I bought my NIV in 2016 at Walmart. It’s a 1984 version. I’m guessing it was sitting on the shelf for a long time.
what is NIV50?
You need to watch Dr Phil Stringer talking about the NIV & The Omnigender Revolution, even if you don't hold to the TR it’s a must see.
You could also just read Omnigender by Virginia Mollenkott itself.
Thank you for this video. I was not aware that the NIV had done this. Very informative.
Thanks for the insight and clear examples of how different the 2011NIV is. Nahum 3:13 is yet another example. I went back to my 84NIV to see what it said. All 4 instances are translated “women” in it.
Imagine being in a biblical battle and throwing a spear at your adversary and miss and they shout “haha you throw like a girl” I have a RSV I read that the Church of Christ gave me in 68 and another in 75, I also read the NKJV , I really enjoy that one, thanks
i am seeing online that the 1984 also uses "her" in the text not just the 2011 and more recents as well as ESV
I'm going to disagree on this one. I think the idea that men and women are equal, potentially even physically, is so pervasive that many readers (particularly those who are not sensitive to cultural differences) are not going to get that "become like women" means become weak or unfit for battle. The NIV makes that clear. I do disagree with some other translation choices the NIV makes, but those go all the way back to the first edition.
I'd avoid NIV for the same reason other translations like (H)CSB,GW,GNT, in how they translate Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which promotes the idea of "rape to marry". Obviously in context, it's talking about consent. But the average atheist will use those preferred translations against you.
TLB (Living Bible) and CEV (Contemporary English Version) have the same bad translation as well. And if one did use the term "violated" in this verse, the ancient Israelites believed that premarital sex was a violation of God's creation.
What the average atheist also fails to realize is that it while it says he can't divorce her, *it does NOT say that she can't divorce him.*
After the 84 niv , I tried the 2011 and the reasons here made me switch. In so many places the NLT reads a lot closer to the niv 84. In jer 50 verse 37 in the nlt it reads women along with the other examples in the video. In 2cor 5:17 the niv 11 changed it to - 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
It was just changed too much and sounded clunky. The nlt reads more like the niv 84- “This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!”
The niv 84 says - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
I think the NIV is “ok” (but not the best); but I think it is funny that many evangelicals swear by the NIV, but denigrate the NRSV, which does the same thing. In both cases they are trying to present the original message in the language that people today actually speak, which generally is more gender-neutral than was the case 50 years ago. But, unfortunately, in both cases there are numerous places where you actually miss what the original text says, and potentially miss some Messianic readings for that reason. All of the examples you give says “women” in the NRSV.
Brother, you don't look like what you are, a clickbaiter. Why? Man of God, why?
I prefer the ESV, LSB, and the NET. I will always have a special place in my heart for the NIV '84. That one uses 'women' in those verses in Jeremiah. The NIV '84 was my first Study Bible. It was also the version of the Bible that a guy gave me in a Truck Stop. They were from a local Baptist Church in Southern Indiana. They were handing out copies of the NT with Psalms and Proverbs. I asked him what they had against the OT and if they didn't think it was important enough. I was an unsaved smart alec. Well, he gave me his copy. It was just a heavy paper cover version but it was HIS own. I still have it. It's been all over the US and is beat up and the cover is held on with tape. God used that man, and this version to start me down the path to Salvation. I will always treasure that. Isn't God magnificent?!
The NLT-2015 (latest one) preserves "They have become like women" in Jeremiah and "[they] will be as weak as women" in Isaiah. Regarding the NIV-2011, please the check the requirements for elders and overseers in 1 Timothy and Titus. The NIV-2011 (and NRSV) word things to support the ordination of women.
The NRSV does not word things to support the ordination of women in 1 Timothy 3. Notice how it translates verses 4-5: "He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?" Those are masculine pronouns in a translation that avoids using masculine pronouns generically.
When the RSV New Testament came out in 1946, the committee chose to translate 1 Timothy 3.2 with the words "married only once." (You can imagine that this interpretation would have been highly controversial even at the time: a mere decade after King Edward, the head of the Church of England, infamously stepped down from the throne to marry a divorced woman!) They received pushback from people who thought that the Greek phrase meant something else, so they reverted back to the more traditional (and ambiguous) "husband of one wife" for the 1952 printing. The 1989 NRSV simply restored the RSV's intended wording.
@@MAMorenoYou're right about 1 Timothy 3 and I am wrong about that. In Titus 1, however, the NRSVue is gender-neutral for elders but not bishops.
I like the NIV84, but have been very disappointed by its successor. These days you’re likely to catch me reading the NIV84, ESV, NKJV, KJV, or NASB. The latter has had its share of revisions, too.
I just was recently baptized and as a gift was given a NIV Bible but from what I'm reading it's definitely before the changes. Jeremiah 50:37 refers to them becoming women.
I enjoy reading the NIV. I also consider myself woke biblically speaking.
“Awake, O sleeper,
and rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.” Eph 5:14
I never read the NIV and came away thinking, “man this version is catering to a gender neutral society.” I would have to have a pre-supposition that I apply to the reading of the NIV which usually comes from someone telling me it does.
"Ephesians 5:14
14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."
kjv
@@user-im9ov9ud7mThere does seem to be a difference in someone shining on you versus giving you light.
I wouldn't say that it's offensive but more readable. Weakling is defined as a person or animal that is physically weak and frail. If you don't know the idioms for the word women, and went to look at the definition, you'd see women: an adult female human being. Thus reading the NKJV you would read Their might has failed, They became like "an adult female human being" what then does that mean? They're transgendered? If you associate women=weak, then there should be no issue in using weakling instead of women. Since the NIV isn't trying to be a literal word-for-word translation, it accomplishes its goal of being thought-for-thought.
Good points. I'd add the worse part of the NIV2011 is completely ignoring the reference to Christ in Hebrews 2 where it quotes Psalm 8,
“What is mankind that you are mindful of ,
son of man that you care for him?
7 You made a little lower than the angels;
you crowned with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their .”
In putting everything under , God left nothing that is not subject to . Yet at present we do not see everything subject to .
The writer of Hebrews obviously intends for Psalm to reference our Lord Jesus Christ, and the "translators" complete gloss over this being motivated to make the whole Bible gender neutral. Actually, it really appears that no study was done at all but rather just did a FIND-AND-REPLACE on their word processor. Find "man" and "woman" and replace it with "them".
Also, a critical text change is 2 Cor 5:17. We all know that when we're in Christ we're a new creation. But the 2011 changes it so that it says "the new creation has come" removing the individual aspect of our salvation and make God's work impersonal.
And just stylistically. Gender neutral language detracts from the beauty of how the 1984 rendered poetry, especially the Psalms. Take Psalm 1, "Blessed is the one....that person" rather than "Blessed is the man...he"
and 1 Tim 2:5 5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and , the man Christ Jesus," (in place of 'men').
I loved the NIV84, especially the Psalms, and I still use it daily. But I cannot recommended the NIV2011. Biblica and Moo and Mounce and the others have ruined it for any value for serious Bible study or for public reading. As paraphrase, I guess it's ok. But it is not a good translation anymore.
And, besides, are we not lead the culture, rather than have the culture lead us?
If your faith in Christ is strong then it shouldn't matter what translation your read from providing it's not a corrupt translation such as NWT. I personally have the KJV, NKJV and the NIV, and I like them all for specific reasons. I like the KJV for it's archaic beauty which makes it stand out from many other translations. However because of it's archaic language I find some passages don't make sense or seem contradictory. Therfore I appreciate new translations like the NIV because although it may not read like a traditional KJV and have that charming archaic beauty, it's up to date english makes it a whole lot easier to understand and more comfortable to read as a whole, making them harder to understand passages a breeze to read through. And so I think its healthy to alternate between a KJV and any new translation to your preference, rather than just sticking with one or the other and would encourage anyone to do so.
So long as the word of God is conveyed and the message of the gospel is clear to those with ears to listen, let us not then bash on those who read different translations to us, because you may end up pushing people away from Christ, and friends we do not want that kind of blood on our hands.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
Niv...has a verse regarding the colossians 3:12..slaves to obey your earthy masters...with that i feel ive been reading false messages and iam asking for some insights to where i may find a book containing the real word of our lord...because i know very well our lord does not condone any slave or any man ruling his brothers and sisters to have pleasure at the cost of happiness for the rest...iam starting to think where watching this key being removed and replaced with blasphemy. Thank u
When I came to faith, I was the 1984 NIV with the Thompson Chain Reference, which my pastor gave me after my baptism. Since then, I have graduated to the ESV as my faith has matured. As stared by several people here and various pastors of mine, some versions do a better job translationing some text better than others.
Great video!
NIV 1984 compared to 2011 is like two entirely different translations. One thing I noted many books (not just bibles) and even shows, movies etc, became…”woke” (or whatever word best describes that type of ideology) tried to in that 2011-2013 time period. Idk why but it’s a pattern I’ve seen as if that’s when someone decided to make it mainstream even in God’s Holy Bible. Thankfully many did not do that.
Ps I love bibles, have many compare translations for fun, so have even NWT (a friend who quit them gave me their older and their 2013 versions) and the new one has removed much gendered language. So it’s odd that even that group changed and in those same 2 years.
Maybe I’m crazy but it sure seems like a pattern and as much as I like the easier reading of the NIV, the 1984 one, all the new changes are…problematic as some would like to say.
Again, great video. Your videos have helped me a lot!
I actually just bought an old 1984 NIV on EBay. It is excellent! Good reader.
Definitely recommend the ESV as an up to date translation over the NIV.
I use a complete, accurate Bible, that is a CATHOLIC BIBLE. I use the Catholic Truth Society [CTS] version which is also the version read at Mass. All protestant Bibles are deficient in the Old Testament as they omit the books of Baruch, Judith, 1/2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Wisdom. They also omit whole chapters from the Books of Daniel and Esther.
I love the NIV (1984). I have one copy of the updated NIV. It may be updated, but I'm not that fond of it.
I don't know about woke, your video indicates it is going that way though, but my recollection of the NIV has always been it is simplistic compared to other translations such as the (N)KJV, NASB.
What is meant by the NKJV using the word women? What is more important, to know what something says or what something means? If the NKJV means they will become weaklings when it refers to them becoming like women then why did it try to hide what was meant in the Hebrew? Why not, rather, be like the NIV and translate what is meant so that more people can have greater understanding?
Out of the three NIV Bibles I have (one of which is a Parallel Bible with the NKJV version), only one of them says "women" in Jeremiah 51:30, the NIV Adventure Bible from 1984 which was my first childhood Bible given to me 20 years ago from the first church I went to (and still have). The other two have "weaklings" for the translation. The older NIV is better, but I still think that the ESV is more accurate.
Terms like "woke" and "social justice" used to mean/stand for good things, but they've been twisted sadly nowadays to where the original meanings are lost.
Any books for biblical masculinity ?
You should check out Masculine Christianity by Zachary Garris.
I think the point of the insult was to say the men would be like women. Which, as a woman, I find hilarious and not insulting to women at all. Let culture be offended, don't change the Word, I don't think the Holy Spirit would go back and edit His words to play nice with our culture.
From what I understand, the NIV may also be the only translation that says the Holy Spirit dwells “in our midst” rather than “in us” in 1 Corinthians 3:16.
Pastor Matt. What are your views on complimentarianism vs patriarchy? In my opinion, complimentarianism is simply egalitarianism in disguise. We live in a world ruled by our Father and I believe that is how He designed the world. Father rule aka Patriarchy. Complimentarianism is basically just egalitarianism's foot in the door and will always revert leftward if tolerated long enough.
I think the term Complementarianism is correct. Because I do think Biblical Patriarchy is intended to show that women do complement men Biblically speaking which is why they make for ideal life partners and not other men or animals.
...but the Bible clearly teaches Patriarchy. In both the Old and New Testament. Changing gendered language to gender neutral completely changes the meaning of the original text which absolutely does "add or remove" from the text of Scripture.
So I don't necessarily think Complementarians are wrong persay, but they take way too soft of a stance on what the Biblical text actually says to try and appeal to Biblical authority while somewhat trying (and failing) to appease modern sentimentality).
For example, when the Bible says "women rule over you!" that absolutely is meant as an insult because women were not created to rule over men. Or when "women" gets changed to "weakling" it completely changes the meaning because the text was purposely telling the men they have become emasculated and they need to act as men, not as women.
This offends modern sentiments because of our feminist culture. In reality if the Bible were written today we would actively be mocked for allowing women to rule over is.
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
One of the most famous passages used by egalitarians of male headship being a result of the fall is refuted in the next chapter with God using the same "you must rule over" terminology in Cain overcoming his sin (which he ultimately fails to do so).
@@jrconway3
Well said brother thank you.
Whether or not the term complimentarian is a good word to use depends on who is defining it (which goes for any word including Patriarchy). The problem with holding to complimentarianism is that it gives too much away. Especially when you consider why it is being used instead of Patriarchy. It is itself an emasculated attempt to hold on to what God has spoken while still giving a small pinch of incense to the PC culture that has slithered its way into the Church. We have to stop being so afraid of stomping on the heads of serpents simply because the optics of it looks too violent to a world who hates our Lord.
It's funny that the NIV2011 is still considered middle balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought and yet I can routinely find passages in the latest NLT revision (2015, I think?) where it's more literal than the NIV2011. All three of the verses you highlight here are prime examples. The supposedly more dynamic, more thought-for-thought, NLT uses "like women" or "as women" and not "weaklings" like the NIV2011.
The NIV continues to dominate the sales charts just due to past success and mindshare. If people actually read it, they'd do as I have and flock back to the NASB, NKJV, or KJV. For the newer or younger believer, I'd recommend the NLT or CSB any day over the NIV2011 (with the hope that they would gradually move to a more literal translation). Edit: I find the CSB Apologetics Bible for Students to be fantastic for younger believers.
I was curious what the CSB said on these versions. CSB says women .
I've been reading the CSB lately and it's started to grow on me
It seems the NIV provides "cover" for several fringe churches that had difficulty answering questions from STANDARD KING BIBLE churches, especially, as far as THE NEW TESTAMENT is concerned. Compare both bibles translations 0f THE BOOK OF ACTS...
Nice, I like the NIV and I have an old version.
The bible updated first to the TNIV(2005) version and then they changed it to the NIV version(2011) with the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method they may change the bible alot more
The hebrew of the NIV is different than the Hebrew in the NKJV as they use the masoretic texts and use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Ironically, the latest update of the NRSV of 2021 of the National Council of Churches maintains “women” in each of those places:
“A sword against her horses and against her chariots and against all the foreign troops in her midst, so that they may become women! A sword against her treasures, that they may be plundered!”
Jeremiah 50:37 NRSVUE
“The warriors of Babylon have given up fighting; they remain in their strongholds; their strength has failed; they have become women; her buildings are set on fire; her bars are broken.”
Jeremiah 51:30 NRSVUE
“On that day the Egyptians will be like women and tremble with fear before the hand that the Lord of hosts raises against them.”
Isaiah 19:16 NRSVUE
I have a copy of a 1984 NIV I looked up the versus you share with us. In Jeremiah 50:38, 51:30 and Isaiah 19:16 they say Woman instead of weakling. Is the 2011 NIV does a weakling instead of women. This is why I still prefer the 1984 NIV. I agree with you 100% 2011 NIV has a lot of changes I don't agree with. But I don't consider it woke either.
If I followed correctly, in the Tanakh, Jeremiah and Isaiah accuse the enemies of becoming "like women" because women were...weak? They will become like women = they will become weak = they will become weaklings. Thought for thought would indicate that 'like women' means 'weaklings'. Does current vernacular matter in Biblical translation? If not, we should have stopped at the KJV. Or the 1599 Geneva. If it does matter, then one might expect to see more translations, like NIV, NLT, NKJV, CSB, NET, and on and on. Was the point of the NIV to be woke, or to express ancient theology in a modern, relatable text? Maybe it would be a good idea to read more than one translation. Maybe.
isaiah 19:16, jerimiah51:30,50:37 i compare those with the other tranlatons & nlt is a lil better than the niv 11 not by much though i got the niv 78,84,&90 thanks pastor everhard for the info
Man I am a bit conflict. All my notes are in my NIV.
I used the NIV for the first 2 years after my conversion. I was a great help to me. When I moved to the NKJV it helped me to continue to grow in my deepening understanding of the word. The gender stuff from the NIV did bother me. I know what it's like to have a bible full of notes and switch to a new Bible. I filled that NJKV bible up with notes and It is all ratty and tattered and sticky pages and I have been slowly transferring all my important notes to a different bible. Even if you decide to change bibles you don't have to get rid of your notes. You can always use your old bible along with a new one if you do decide to make the switch. God bless🙂
@@chrisjohnson9542I would assume your growth is from continued bible study not a translation change.
(Though really these days sometimes it seems "woke" has itself turned into a facile generic insult to throw around about anything and anyone someone does not like even by people who don't even know where the word came from. But that aside...) Yes, in the passage example the referring to the enemy as "women" is *meant* to be used in a derisory manner. It's "you fight like girls!" The speaker/writer is communicating their enemies are unmanly ... and *that does raise the question: why then not translate as "they will become unmanly"?* That way you would not directly referring to women negatively; the fail seems to be trying to even avoid implying that being "manly" is better than not -- an unnecessary approach to take when in context you are presumably referring to a battle between armies of men.
I agree that the examples given are concerning.
But I have to disagree with your take on the "problem with dynamic equivalent translations"
Literal (or formal equivalent) shows the words the writer chose
Thought for thought (dynamic equivalent) shows what the intended listener is supposed to hear.
An idiom in the source language is not useful without an understanding of what it means.
(Like if you were to read "the wit of the staircase" in a translation from French.)
And overall, I'd prefer to hear what the listener was intended to hear.
For example
2 Corinthians 1:22 (NKJV):
who (God) also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
A guarantee of what? No single modern English word fully conveys the meaning here. (The KJV has one with "the earnest" but it isn't a term used today and ends up being misleading)
Now look at what the reader would have understood in that Corinthian church when they read Paul's letter
2 Corinthians 1:22 (NLT):
and he has identified us as his own by placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts as the first installment that guarantees everything he has promised us.
Personally, I always read both types of translations because I want both what words were used, as well as what was understood.
“Them’s Fighting Words” and “Fisticuffs” 😂 Only You can use those terms they way you did and make me laugh. Soli Deo Gloria!
i use NIV-84, and NIV-2011, ESV, NKJV
The NIV84 doesn't use the word "sodomites". Virginia Molenkott a professing lesbian was a consultant for the NIV84.
I avoid it due to NIV changing the gender in certain passages.
God made adding & subtracting CLEAR. Do the math.
The KJV is out then they added verses
Woke just means being aware of Injustice which I think Jesus would be all about (at least that was its original meaning before social justice warriors attached it to trans movement, but let's remember despite how annoying liberals have made the issue, that everyone, including those folks deserve a fair shake and to be treated with respect) I just think a Christian saying he'd be offended to be labeled woke is odd given Jesus's emphasis on not just treating everyone as if they mattered (whores, poor, criminals, etc) but also sympathizing with their plight (rather than judging, which oddly, from what I've seen seems to be Christians go to move) and advocation for marginalized communities is what "woke" is all about essentially.
True, the term used to mean that, but nowadays it's been twisted by SJWs and lost its original definition. 😔
@@saintsheepy6682 I'd argue that the term "woke" has actually been twisted by reactionary news pundits. They'd already worn out "liberals" (which is funny considering that essentially all Americans are "liberals," whether they're conservative or progressive) and needed some other word to co-opt into an insult.
Granted, some young white progressives latched onto this particular African-American term and treated it as a trendy buzzword, too, but I wouldn't call that twisting the word: it's more like diluting it.
Hello Matt. Honestly, I just don’t trust the NIV. I’ve viewed many TH-cam videos from Pastors (not just anyone) regarding the differences in the NIV and the KJV, which have theological implications. I trust the KJV, NASB (this is what I was advised to use when I was saved in college), NKJV and maybe the ESV. Blessings in Christ.
Most KJV attacks against the NIV I've seem are regarding textual issues. They just pick the NIV instead of the ESV or the NASB because it's the most popular.
While i can understand the translators' reasoning, if the Hebrew word is really "women," is their justification for not using "women" adequate? IMO, no.
I have read that the church of the 1st century had to counter gnostic teaching, which said that certain people had special knowledge. I see that sort of thinking in these translators; "we know what the writer was trying to say." I'm not even implying there was malicious intent; however, changing a clear word to another does warrant a great deal of scrutiny.
Great video, thanks for sharing. I think the NIV 84 was an excellent translation, but since then the various editions of the NIV seem to have gone off the rails a bit. From what I have been told (and your samples bear this out) the NASB 20 does a better job of handling the idea of gender, despite my concerns that it also was going to be too "woke." Looking forward to your next video!
Maybe the new NIV said weaklings because people now days think men and women are the same and that women can do anything that men can do.. so they had to specifically put weaklings to get the point across that the army would be weak (like women).. I guess they could have put weak in brackets next to or something but that’s just the hunch I get. I totally see your point though and I agree it blurs the traditional gender roles. Hopefully any one new to the faith reading NIV will graduate to a more word for word translation as they grow in their walk with the Lord.
Yes,there are changes of meanings of scripture.
How many ridiculous n un-necessary times will the NIV 84 translation have to be updated until it is recognized as merely a marketing n copy right scheme
Please tell it like it is !
I'm an NIV onlyest. Not real. But I use it the most. It takes me 2 seconds to research the meaning of any text.
BTW I do not care for the latest version. More of a 1984 kind of GUY!😁
Is this a rage click bait title? Yes, yes it is.
Feminism has been a issue for a long time. Woke is the modern version of it! I just don’t understand why the church has not condemned it.
Because they realize Jesus would probably be all for gender equality?
I use the NIV Jesus Bible. I see pleanty of Him/Her....
What does the new KJV mean by women? You didn't explain? It seems they mean the same thing in the KJV and the NIV...