I’m not pitting the two translations against each other, just commenting on their biases.
Jeff

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.

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

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.

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

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!!!

Shameful.