UPDATE 9/4/09: WorldMagBlog added this below the two posts I mention below:
EDITOR’S NOTE: In a post on Tuesday, WorldMagBlog quoted from a post at Christianity Today’s blog that the writer later had to adjust a bit. With CT, we apologize for that misleading detail. The main point of the several stories, however, remains fully accurate. See WORLD’s coverage in next week’s magazine for a fuller report.
However, they did not correct what they originally wrote, as Christianity Today did.
Here is what was originally written in the press release:
In announcing a major revision of the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society and Send The Light, or IBS-STL) CEO Keith Danby said decisions surrounding the release of the NIV inclusive language edition and the 2002 revision, Today’s New International Version (TNIV), were mistakes.
But in WorldMagBlog’s posts they write, “Translators of the controversial, gender-neutral Today’s New International Version are now saying they made a mistake, reports Christianity Today.” (translators did not say this) and “On Tuesday, Alisa blogged about the TNIV and how its translators now admit the gender-neutral edition was a mistake.”
Neither of these factual errors were corrected which makes me wonder what their motives are.
End of Update
Original Post:
Regular readers know I do my best to keep things positive. There are plenty of other blogs out there to point out the negative or to be polemic in nature.
I also don’t want to get into this whole NIV, TNIV, NIV 2011 thing other than the link roundup.
However I would like to point something out.
For a bit of history, on February 23, 2002 WORLD Magazine’s Susan Olasky wrote a cover story on the TNIV translation which really got things moving in the critical direction.
Then on September 1, 2009 WorldMagBlog wrote a post saying, “Translators of the controversial, gender-neutral Today’s New International Version are now saying they made a mistake, reports Christianity Today.”
But that isn’t what translators said. Christianity Today wrote a retraction saying, “Note: An earlier version of this blog post said that Keith Danby’s remark that “some of the criticism was justified and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made” was in regard to the Today’s New International Version. He was discussing the earlier New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, released in the U.K. in 1996. I sincerely apologize for the error.” But WorldMagBlog won’t acknowledge the error.
To make matters worse, they said something similar in another post on September 3 (today, as of this writing). “On Tuesday, Alisa blogged about the TNIV and how its translators now admit the gender-neutral edition was a mistake.”
In a comment on the thread I suggested they look into the facts and haven’t seen anything yet.
World Magazine is one of the instigators in starting this division in the church over a Bible translation. Whether you agree with TNIV’s translation philosophy or not, it’s gotten out of hand. Let’s see if they do anything about it and if this little blog makes any difference.
I just checked. It appears nothing has been changed.
Shameful.
I wrote an email message to the editors.
Jeff
Still nothing. Unbelievable.
I had to post on this also. World Magazine is not practicing journalistic integrity.
Thanks. My first crusade.
Jeff
Congrats! Your crusade was a success. They left a sorta note. I didn’t see any of your comments get publicly displayed. Did I miss them?
Have you seen their lame “correction”?
They post the following and don’t change anything in the post:
EDITOR’S NOTE: In the post on Tuesday referred to above, WorldMagBlog quoted from a post at Christianity Today’s blog that the writer later had to adjust a bit. With CT, we apologize for that misleading detail. The main point of the several stories, however, remains fully accurate. See WORLD’s coverage in next week’s magazine for a fuller report.
Pathetic!!!
Stan,
I’m surprised they posted anything. I’m sure when they do this…See WORLD’s coverage in next week’s magazine for a fuller report…, there will be a real stink pile.
I was just thinking, what’s a “fuller report”? shouldn’t that be a more “complete report” or an “expanded report”?
Very disappointing. I updated my original post above with all the details. I hope it all makes sense. (What I wrote anyway.)
I doubt they will have had time to correct the errors in the print magazine, not that they seem to be interested in doing so.
Jeff
With respect to gender terms, the English language has already changed. For example, when sending a letter to a local newspaper editor, I no longer use the words “man, men, he, him, or his” when referring to both men and women. Instead, I change my sentence structure in order to use the words “person, people, they, them, or theirs.” So the sentence, “When a man wants a pay raise, he must ask for it,” becomes “When people want pay raises, they must ask for them.”
My second language, Indonesian, does not face this gender related challenge. It has a word for children is “anak-anak.” The word for male is “laki-laki.” The word for female is “perempuan.” So, to say “sons” or “daughters,” you have to modify the nouns with the adjectives and call them, “male children” and ‘female children” (“anak-anak laki-laki” and “anak-anak perempuan”).
So, how would you translate the word “sons” in the phrase “sons of God” into Indonesian?
If you translate word-for-word, then you end up with, “anak-anak laki-laki.” However, this phrase excludes daughters from the meaning of the original phrase. Closer to the *meaning* of the original *word* would be the less direct translation “anak-anak” which means “children.”
Is the NIV allowed to adapt to the most popular use of gender terms?
Those saying “yes” desire to most accurately communicate the meanings of the original Greek and Hebrew *words* to the most modern audience. They understand the “cultural battle” for the historic use of gender terms has been lost. They are accommodating the new linguistic landscape. They are following the same principles used to translate the Bible into Indonesian.
Those answering “no” are still engaged in the culture-war to preserve the historic gender inclusive use of male terms. They impose archaic linguistic gender conventions of Greeks and Hebrews on a modern audience that no longer follows those conventions. The same semantic word-for-word correspondence applied to translating the Bible into Indonesian would exclude women from the meaning of many passages in the Indonesian Bible.
Very interesting Bruce. I was going to say it’s a never ending debate but maybe someday it will be. Maybe not in our lifetimes though.
I can understand both points of view but I’m tired of the debate and wish people wouldn’t make it a divisive one.
Jeff
I posted a couple of comments here and didn’t get anywhere:
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/09/05/rants-raves-9-5/
#38, #42
Jeff
I’ve given up. At least they acknowledged me.
Jeff
I may have to cancel my subscription to World Magazine.
Awesome Jeff. You took this on and handled it with real care and maturity. That’s something I need to learn from you. World magazine could learn something from you too, but I have a feeling any communication with them is a “one way” conversation.
Thanks. At least they wrote back to me when I sent them an email message and they wrote the lame “correction”. The other commenters on the latest thread I posted on didn’t get what the big deal was. It makes me wonder if I’m making too big of a deal about it. But I don’t think presenting honest information is something that should be taken lightly. It seems like apathy all around there. Oh well.
Jeff
Jeff,
This isn’t minor and making a big of a deal about it is appropriate. You just highlighted one of the biggest problems in this whole debate. These people, for example the other commenter’s, will read what World Rag puts out and swallow it all uncritically and without question, swallow and follow.
When you tried to point something specific out, I’m assuming some of these people would self appoint themselves and experts on the TNIV, they couldn’t comprehend, listen, reasons and analytical ability appeared lost.
Yeah, the commenters don’t like the TNIV. I don’t like to make assumptions about people but if it were misinformation on the ESV I would guess it might be different.
I’m not pitting the two translations against each other, just commenting on their biases.
Jeff
thanks for holding World Mag accountable.
You’re welcome but I’m not sure how much good it did.
Jeff