NIV changes and Bible inerrancy

[bytebear]

I recently heard that the NIV version of the Bible is being updated. I haven't reviewed the changes, but I wonder, does this upset anyone? How does it relate to the LDS belief that the Bible is true "as far as it is translated correctly?"

NIV Bible update may spark battle | courier-journal.com | The Courier-Journal

[ZenMormon]

The changes are profound and will more then likely effect the purchases of it. The one that sticks out is any reference to Gods being refered to him/he/his or any reference to God being male.

[EruditioSalvatus]

Just further proof that the infallible word of god is often muddled and doctored by mere men and their printing presses!

[RiversideGuy]

Any translation should not be confused with the original tongue. Young's Literal Translation of the Bible is very very good.

[AnthonyB]

The problem with a "literal" translation is that language is often idiomatic not literal. The NIV is "dynamic equivalance" and NASB is more word for word. Of course we could all spend several years learning koine greek and ancient hebrew and aramaic.

As to "as far as its is correctly translated", my personal feeling is that a better description of the LDS position is "as far as it is correctly interpreted". The difference between LDS and non-LDS isn't so much in translating words from ancient to modern tongues but rather in the very different presuppostion each side brings to the meaning of those words.

Personally this appears part of our western cultural tendency to "degenderization". LDS clearly perceive Father God as engendered as male (bodily), so any attempt to use neutral language about Him would jar for you.

My non-LDS issue is more around firstly Paul gives gender specific commands and instructions. Secondly both Jesus and Paul both structure their groupings with gender differentiated roles. People keen of gender "inclusiveness" often portray Paul as still captive to social norms of his day and not walking in the full freedom of the gospel. This allows them to sidestep his gender specific instructions and actions. (Sometimes to me they comes across as if Paul is almost a misogynist.) However IMHO if you devalue Paul in such a way, given his pervasive influence on the NT writings you leave little left. It becomes our society informing God that his "word" isn't up to scratch in our opinion, rather then God speaking to us of where we and our society don't measure up to His standards.

Odd people don't generally accuse Jesus himself of being captive to social mores like they do Paul. Yet it was Jesus who picked the twelve and picked them all as men. Quite clearly a number of times Jesus crossed certain cultural boundaries, infact sometimes defiantly so, yet IMHO he clearly left other things unchallenged.

The other major concern is it plays havoc with the imagery of the NT. If gender doesn't matter then are we free to change "Christ is the groom and we are the bride" to "Christ and us are partners." It is us and Jesus as co-equal partners, not Him as Lord and us as servants.

[Maureen]

Just further proof that the infallible word of god is often muddled and doctored by mere men and their printing presses!

You would prefer that the printing press was never invented so the mankind could have floundered in ignorance these past 500 and some years?

[RiversideGuy]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

The problem with a "literal" translation is that language is often idiomatic not literal. The NIV is "dynamic equivalance" and NASB is more word for word. Of course we could all spend several years learning koine greek and ancient hebrew and aramaic.

As to "as far as its is correctly translated", my personal feeling is that a better description of the LDS position is "as far as it is correctly interpreted". The difference between LDS and non-LDS isn't so much in translating words from ancient to modern tongues but rather in the very different presuppostion each side brings to the meaning of those words.

Personally this appears part of our western cultural tendency to "degenderization". LDS clearly perceive Father God as engendered as male (bodily), so any attempt to use neutral language about Him would jar for you.

My non-LDS issue is more around firstly Paul gives gender specific commands and instructions. Secondly both Jesus and Paul both structure their groupings with gender differentiated roles. People keen of gender "inclusiveness" often portray Paul as still captive to social norms of his day and not walking in the full freedom of the gospel. This allows them to sidestep his gender specific instructions and actions. (Sometimes to me they comes across as if Paul is almost a misogynist.) However IMHO if you devalue Paul in such a way, given his pervasive influence on the NT writings you leave little left. It becomes our society informing God that his "word" isn't up to scratch in our opinion, rather then God speaking to us of where we and our society don't measure up to His standards.

Odd people don't generally accuse Jesus himself of being captive to social mores like they do Paul. Yet it was Jesus who picked the twelve and picked them all as men. Quite clearly a number of times Jesus crossed certain cultural boundaries, infact sometimes defiantly so, yet IMHO he clearly left other things unchallenged.

The other major concern is it plays havoc with the imagery of the NT. If gender doesn't matter then are we free to change "Christ is the groom and we are the bride" to "Christ and us are partners." It is us and Jesus as co-equal partners, not Him as Lord and us as servants.

I feel the degenderization is more a crime of a "politically correct" mentality which says everyone is okay; everything that anyone thinks, says, and does cannot be judged. And that all ideas, and values are all equal. Jesus never suggested that...

[EruditioSalvatus]

Originally Posted by Maureen

You would prefer that the printing press was never invented so the mankind could have floundered in ignorance these past 500 and some years?

No but it could certainly puts anyone who believes in biblical infallibility between a rock and a hard place, lol.

And remember, religious leaders were the ones who were most against the printing press

[Galatians220]

Originally Posted by EruditioSalvatus

No but it could certainly puts anyone who believes in biblical infallibility between a rock and a hard place, lol.

And remember, religious leaders were the ones who were most against the printing press

Are you saying ALL of them or at least half of them? You're not very careful in making any distinctions. If I recall correctly it was mostly the Protestants who wanted the Printing press in order to bring the bible to the common man. They also want the bible to be written in their own tongue.

I've posted a reply to you about the size of the fig tree as well as your last post on "The Bible is so Confusing" how about stopping by and answer those?



As for the question at hand, I agree with RiversideGuy and AnthonyB. It's done out of Political Correctness and it does reek havoc with the clearly male imagery and that it will damage the people's trust in the Word of God