INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV TO BE DISCONTINUED

INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV TO BE DISCONTINUED?

[Distributed by Way of Life Literatureâs Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright by David W. Cloud. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites and cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, give us your name, address, and the name of the church you are a member of, and request to be placed on the list. Please note that this is not a free service. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and each subscriber is expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of address, send your name and the request to fbns@wayoflife.org. This is not an automated list. Changes in the database often require two to four days to activate. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 17th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site -- http://www.wayoflife.org/.]

March 29, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The International Bible Society, publisher of the New International Version, issued a press release on May 27 stating that they will cease to work toward producing an inclusive language edition of the NIV in the United States. This move is in response to a large outpouring of criticism toward the inclusive language project.

World magazine (P.O. Box 2330, Asheville, NC 28802) published an article in its March 29, 1997, issue entitled "Femme Fatale: The Feminist Seduction of the Evangelical Church," exposing the NIV's agenda of producing inclusive language editions of its popular Bible translation. The NIV publishers responded with angry notices at the Zondervan Internet web site, in which they denounced the editors of World magazine in very harsh terms and implied that the article was dishonest. (We viewed these articles and copied them for our files, but they were removed from the Zondervan web site after several days.) World's exposure of the inclusive language versions of the NIV started an avalanche of negative feedback aimed at the NIV publishers. Many well-known Christian leaders, including J.I. Packer and James Dobson, spoke out against the project.

After reading the World magazine article we obtained the two existing inclusive language editions of the New International Version for the purpose of producing our own report on this matter. On April 19 we published an article via the Fundamental Baptist Information Service entitled "An NIV for Every Person," which described the two inclusive language editions of the NIV which have appeared in the last three years. The New International Reader's Version (NIrV), published in 1995, is aimed at the third grade reading level, and it incorporates inclusive language characteristics, meaning "brother" is changed to "brother and sister"; "man" is changed to "human beings," etc. The New International Inclusive Language Edition also appeared in 1995 in Britain, published by Hodder & Stoughton under contract with the NIV publishers in the United States. The inclusive language NIV text was produced by the NIV continuing translation committee and was supplied to Hodder & Stoughton. The NIV Committee for Biblical Translation (CBT) has been working on the inclusive language edition for years. Larry Walker, a member of the NIV's CBT, noted that pressure for such a version came from women who "felt left out" by the traditional language.

Now the International Bible Society (IBS), the publishers of the NIV, has bowed under the pressure of negative publicity and has issued a four-point policy. The following is taken directly from the Zondervan web site --

1) IBS has abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV).

2) The present (1984) NIV text will continue to be published. There are no plans for a further revised edition.

3) IBS will begin immediately to revise the New International Readers Version (NIrV) in a way that reflects the treatment of gender on the NIV. IBS is directing the licensees who publish the current NIrV to published only the revised NIrV as soon as it is ready.

4) IBS will enter into negotiations with the publisher of the NIV in the U.K. on the matter of ceasing publication of its "inclusive language" edition of the NIV.

The International Bible Society news release also included the following statements by leaders within the International Bible Society:

"As the most popular contemporary version of the Bible ever published, we knew the significance of the current NIV. But it was not until the evangelical community became aware of a possible revision that we realized the beloved place this translation occupies for the Bible-reading public. We care deeply about the concerns of church leaders, scholars and Christian readers who favor gender-related language changes. However this decision comes from our internal conviction that to move ahead would cause division in the body of Christ and therefore compromise mission to serve the Church in the U.S. and abroad" (Lars Dunberg, president of the International Bible Society).

"The NIV doesn't belong to IBS or our licensed publishers, it belongs to the people. Virtually all other contemporary Bible translations already reflect gender treatments consistent with the language of today. However, the NIV has essentially become the Bible of the evangelical church, which has come to trust in and depend upon the NIV's current accuracy, clarity and readability. In recent weeks it has become very clear that many people in North America don't want the NIV changed, even if many Bible scholars feel a revision could more clearly reflect shifts in English language usage, and more precisely render the meaning of the original texts into English for current and future generations" (Victor I . Oliver, board chair of the International Bible Society).

WE WOULD MAKE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS IN REGARD
TO THIS MATTER --

FIRST, IT IS STRANGE TO HEAR THE NIV PUBLISHERS SPEAK OF A "POSSIBLE REVISION." This is strange, because the inclusive language NIV is not a mere possibility. It is a reality, and it has been in print for two years in Britain. As I write, I have before me a copy of the Inclusive Language edition of the NIV published by Hodder & Stoughton. I can assure my readers that it does exist. The copyright page states that this inclusive language version was copyrighted in 1995 and 1996 by the International Bible Society. The NIV publishers admit this, of course, in their press release, but on the other hand they frequently speak of the inclusive language edition of the NIV as if it were something they have merely contemplated. The reaction of the NIV publishers reminds us of Aaron of old in regard to the golden calf which he made. When Moses asked about it, Aaron said that he put the gold in the fire and out came the calf. An amazing miracle! Aaron did not feel like owning up to his responsibility in the sinful endeavor, so he worded his narrative in such a way to make it sound as if the idol made itself in the fire. The NIV publishers don't want to admit boldly that they have been working undercover since at least 1992 to produce an inclusive language edition of their translation -- but they have.

SECOND, FROM THE INFORMATION GIVEN THUS FAR, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW THE EXACT FUTURE THE NIV IN REGARD TO INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS. They have stated that they have "abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV)." But what about the New Readers Version and the existing Inclusive Language NIV in Britain? In regard to those, the IBS statement is not clear. In regard to the New Readers Version, the IBS says it will be revised "in a way that reflects the treatment of gender on the NIV." What does that mean? Does it mean that absolutely all inclusive language will be removed from the NIrV? They do not say. In regard to the Hodder & Stoughton Inclusive Language NIV in Britain, the IBS says merely that it will enter into negotiations on the matter of ceasing publication. Whether or not publication will actually cease cannot be determined. Thus, it is too early to know the future of inclusive language editions of the NIV.

Could it not be that the IBS is planning merely to wait a few more years when the climate is a little more lenient and then publish its inclusive language NIV in the States? Given the history of these Bible publishers, we are convinced this is precisely what will happen. We recall that it was only a few weeks ago that IBS International President Lars Dunberg made the following statement to Priscilla Papers, a publication of Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization which supports female leadership:

"Zondervan and IBS WILL PUBLISH an inclusive version of the NIV in the American market. It is not clear yet if that will be done before the major revision that IBS has been working on with the Committee on Bible Translation, which has been going on for the last five-six years. It may be that the next edition will include all those changes, and in that case will not be released until the year 2000. These things are still being debated; that's why we have not been public with it" (Lars Dunberg, Priscilla Papers, April 19, 1997).

The International Bible Society will have to forgive us for not taking their new statement very seriously.

THIRD, IF THE NIV PUBLISHERS HAD ANY REAL CONVICTIONS ABOUT THIS ISSUE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE PRODUCED AN INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE EDITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Nowhere in their press release do they state that inclusive language translation is wrong. In fact, they defend the practice and quote "many Bible scholars" who claim that inclusive language translations "more clearly reflect shifts in English language usage, and more precisely render the meaning of the original texts into English for current and future generations." They do not repent of corrupting God's Word; they repent of stirring up trouble which might affect their financial bottom line. Millions of dollars are on the line here, and that is a powerful incentive.

An article in the Associated Press gives the following additional information:

* "The New International Version holds a 45 percent share of all the Bibles sold in the United States and is especially beloved by evangelicals, who use it nearly as often as the traditional King James Version."

* Conservative Southern Baptist leaders had threatened to pass a resolution at the annual convention urging members, boards and agencies to reject the new edition of the NIV. SBC leader Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, said that the new version is part of a "feminist effort to re-engineer society and abandon God’s parameters for the home and for the church."

These statements provide us with a window into the motive for the IBS’s change of heart in regard to the inclusive language NIV in the States.

FOURTH, IF THE NIV PUBLISHERS REALLY CARED ABOUT THE PURITY OF GOD'S WORD THEY WOULD NOT WORK TOGETHER WITH ZONDERVAN, THE PUBLISHER OF MANY DIFFERENT APOSTATE BIBLES, INCLUDING THE NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION, WHICH IS A GENDER NEUTRAL TRANSLATION PRODUCED BY MODERNISTIC THEOLOGIANS.

FIFTH, WE FIND IT INTERESTING THAT POPULAR CHRISTIAN LEADERS WILL TAKE A STAND AGAINST INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE TRANSLATION BUT THEY TURN A BLIND EYE TO OTHER SERIOUS ISSUES AFFECTING BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS. J.I. Packer criticized the inclusive language NIV, calling it the "feminist edition." Focus on the Family's James Dobson wrote an article opposing the inclusive language NIV, concluding with these words: "If we would not change a comma in the Gettysburg Address, why in the name of heaven would we tamper with the Word of God?" Dobson quoted Revelation 22:18-19 in support of his position against tampering with the Word of God. That is an excellent position. The problem is that these same men seem to care almost nothing about the thousands of words which are changed in the modern critical Greek text. They also support various undependable English versions. In 1984 Dobson came out in support of the International Children's Version New Testament, which is written on a third-grade level. It is absolutely impossible to translate the Bible on a third-grade level without perverting it, for the simple fact that God did not write it on a third-grade level. Dobson criticizes the International Bible Society for changing the Word of God to conform to feminist thinking. Why is this more serious than changing the Word of God to conform to a lower reading level? We do not believe man has the right to change the Word of God for any reason. In 1995 J.I. Packer praised Eugene Peterson's translation entitled "The Message," a new paraphrase or dynamic equivalency version. (Consider, for example, this perversion of John 3:5 as it appears in "The Message": "Jesus said, You're not listening. Let me say it again. Unless a person submits to this original creation--the 'wind hovering over the water' creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new life--it's not possible to enter God's kingdom.") These same men also look askance at the defender of the Received Text and the King James Bible, implying that such are fringe trouble makers who cannot be taken seriously, even though the King James Bible defender is standing on precisely the same principle as that stated in opposition to inclusive language versions: God's Word is pure in every detail, and we will not accept textual and translational changes from the preserved text. When, for example, the critical Greek text removes the word "God" from 1 Timothy 3:16, we do not say, "Well, that is only one word and it is therefore relatively insignificant." No, we say, the word "God" was in our Bibles in this verse through the centuries and we will not allow modern textual critics to remove it. We will fight for every word of the Bible. For this we are labeled fanatics by most Christian leaders today. Thus, we are not impressed with this attempt on their part to be defenders of a pure Bible. Their defense has a hollow ring to it. It is "too little, too late."

IN CONCLUSION, IF THE NIV PUBLISHERS REALLY CARED ABOUT THE PURITY OF GOD'S WORD, THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE PRODUCED THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. It is a dynamic equivalency translation of the corrupt Greek text and it is not dependable.

An excellent article which exposes the corruption of the New International Version is "Modern Versions: The Dark Secret" by Jack Moorman.