Conference yukon::christian

    World magazine has several articles and response from Zondervan on the
    NIV's new gender in question translation.
    
    The are at WWW.WORLDMAG.COM.
    The current issue has responses.  The original was a couple weeks ago.
    
    Kenley

I tried to write .47 hurriedly as I was leaving yesterday, and as a result,
it parses quite badly.  What I said was:

>there's no problem with neutrality because the original languages
>reflect that.

What this sentence was MEANT to say was:

>there's no problem with neutrality [if that neutrality is used] because the
>original languages reflect that.

I looked through for a bit with LOGOS.  The vast majority of the uses of the
word 'aner' which means a man specifically are in places where it really is
talking about a man.  Almost all of the references that seem to be talking of
all human beings use the greek term that means that.  There are a few
exceptions.  Like Mt 12:41 says that the "men" of Ninevah will judge this
generation, using the word for just men.  And 1 Tim 2:8 says "I want 'men'
everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer."

To change these places to say 'people' would be just as much a case of
reading into the text what we want to be there as it would be to decide we're
going to say "Our Parent..."

But just about everywhere else uses 'anthropos,' and translating that as
'people' would actually be MORE accurate.

In doing this, I found something that solved a puzzle for me.  I never quite
understood why Jesus used the term 'Son of Man' to describe Himself.  Because
He *wasn't* a Son of 'man.'  He was a Son of woman and a Son of God, but no
'man' was involved, and it didn't make sense for Him to use the phrase 'Son
of Man.'  But the term used here is 'anthropos,' so perhaps a better
translation might be "Son of Humanity," and that makes much more sense than
"Son of Man."

I'm not as sure about what the Hebrew says.  There are similar distinctions. 
The word "adam" often means 'human,' but not always - as the proper name
'Adam' portrays.  There is another word, 'iysh,' which means more
specifically a male person.  But it sounds like there is a lot more leeway
here for agendas to creep into translation.

I guess all I'm saying is that I'd like to see us not just react against this
as if every particle of it were bad and trying to alter the Word to fit our
personal agendas.  Some of it certainly is, and should be stood against.  But
not *ALL* of it is, and we should 'Hate what is evil, cling to what is good.'
Rom 12:9

Paul

 The WORLD magazine articles are interesting...

 To me what is frightening, and I don't know if this is mentioned in any 
 of the WORLD magazine articles, are quotes from leadership (including
 Pastor Bill Hybels) of the Deer Creek Community Church (a large and fast
 growing church in the suburbs of Chicago) that state that in order for
 one to be in the leadership of that church, one MUST accept the "feminist
 agenda" including the gender neutral language.  I will enter the exact quotes
 over the weekend.

 The church must not be molded to fit the world, and the gender neutralization,
 the removal of the mention of the blood in many song books, the failure of
 many churches to address the concept of sin all point, IMO, to a church trying
 to fit in the world, and a general loss of the role of the church.


 Jim

Jim.... do you believe that the church you attend right now is set up and run
exactly the way a church was run back in the time of Jesus?

I see the differences in how things were done when I was a kid, and how they
are done now at the catholic church in Berlin. I like it much better now. But
it changed, like all the other churches. We even have more denominations, etc.
So unless you are against ALL of those changes, then does your point really hit
home? Or is it that we all have become accustomed to what we have right now,
and that any other change seems wrong?



Glen

 The purpose of the church is not to further a political agenda and make
 everybody feel good.



 Jim

'Change' is neither good nor bad, it depends on what is changing.

Outward forms, types of music/songs, and many many other things are simply
our cultural expression of Faith, and may change at any time to better fit
the culture without harming the essence of the Gospel.

God's immutable truths do not change.  When we try to change those, we
distort and destroy the Gospel.

If we assume all change is bad, we will be stuck with old 'forms.'  People
will recognize that we are holding to human institutions, will quite rightly
reject those, and will often then reject the immutable truths of God along
with them.  I know that at least *part* of what Bill Hybels has done is good-
putting the eternal truth in new wineskins.

If we assume all change is good, we will embrace 'new' truths that aren't
really new at all, but are lies as old as the Garden of Eden, always starting
with the same question:  "Did God *really* say..."  These 'new' truths
conflict with the eternal truth of God and are absolutely incompatible with
it.  And the entire Old Testament is one long history of what God thinks of
our embracing any versions of 'truth' other than what He has given us.  

I haven't followed Hybels too closely, but I've always had the sense that he
has been flirting with doing this in his thirst for 'change.'  What you
reported, Jim, about 'accepting the feminist agenda' may fall into this
catetory.  I'd have to see the actual quotes of what he's saying.

Who God is, who we are, who Jesus is and why we need to be saved by His
Blood- none of that ever changes.  If we try to change anything about those
truths, we are tampering with the Eternal Truth of God.  *HOW* we celebrate
those truths may change all the time, and that's perfectly OK.

Paul

BTW, Nancy, in case there was any doubt (not likely!) the verses about
"Wives, submit to your husbands" and "Husbands, submit to your wives" use
greek words which are very clearly gender specific.

Actually, those verses would be a real problem in creating a truly 'gender-
neutral' translation, since certainly are NOT gender-neutral as they stand,
and they make no sense any more if you take the gender out.  They just become
gibberish.  I think a true 'gender-neutral' version would have to take them
out altogether, as 'mistakes' by Paul's human flesh, which our superior
understanding of history and humanity now makes clear.�  Yeah, that's the
ticket!

Sadly, though they remain in the Bible, that's what most Christians in this
country today do with them anyway. :-(

...

And Mary Jo, you're still off the hook!  :-)  Eph 6:4 clearly says 'Fathers,'
not 'parents.'  :-) :-)

Paul

�Please, everyone, look closely for the chTONGUEeek, and don't respond asking 
 if I really believe that.  :-)

    Paul, a gender-neutral "church" would probably skip passages like 
    Ephesians 5.  Kind of like all the churches today that ignore the
    passages on hell.

I know, Mike.  I know.

Paul

| <<< Note 73.21 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>



| The purpose of the church is not to further a political agenda and make
| everybody feel good.

	So now that church is more alive, then this is a bad thing. Ok.

    
    To really grasp the scope of the gender inclusive NIV and the
    impact on meaning, read the WORLD magazine article. In the recent issue
    there is an inset box where very specific examples of the new
    translation are compared with the old translation and how it affects
    meaning.  I believe JI Packer wrote the inset piece.
    
    jeff

 I recently attended my sister's wedding in California.  It took place at
 a large denominational church, which for several years had suffered a loss
 in attendance.  Church attendance is up considerably now, with the pastor
 telling me that the pews are jammed every Sunday morning.

 Prior to the wedding I was invited to a "pre-wedding" service.  It turned
 out to be a "meditation session" where leaders of this church opened with
 a prayer to a generic God, led a 10 minute excersize in "letting one's mind
 go" or whatever they called it, a 10 minute excersize in becoming familiar
 with a couple of grapes they gave each of us and a brief candle lighting
 ceremony to encourage the couple to "find the light in each of them".  After
 this thing (throughout which I prayed) one of the leaders came up to me and
 said that I appeared to be "uncomfortable" with it (which I was)..and 
 as we talked I expressed my love for the Bible and this person was *astounded*
 that I actually read the Bible!  

 Yes, they are more "alive" in earthly terms, but I believe God has something
 to say to them in the book of Revelation.


 Jim

 Grudem wrote the piece (assuming the one about which you are speaking is
 the one I'm reading now).

 Here's an example:


 Psalm 34:20

 Current NIV: "He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken"

 Inclusive Language NIV:  He protects all their bones, not one of them
                          will be broken.


 Change in meaining:  Specific prediction of Christ's crucifixion is obscured;
                      fulfillment in John 19:36 is obscured.

    .30
    
    And there are alot more examples in the article.  The change in language
    is very serious, fatal actually.  And lest the KJV-only crowd get
    excited, the existing NIV does not have the problem, only the proposed
    version (which may not ever see broad acceptance among evangelicals).
    
    jeff

    .31
    
    Well, are we talking about the same translators for both the NIV and
    NIV gender neutral versions?

      I know I've said this before, but I dropped the NIV like a hot
      potato when I did a Concordance search of the Greek words
      [sarx] and [phusis].
    
      KJV - renders sarx as flesh ALWAYS.
    	  - renders phusis as nature ALWAYS.
            A distinction is obviously realized (ALWAYS).
    
      NIV - renders sarx as nature ALWAYS.
    	    renders phusis as nature ALWAYS.
    	    A distinction is never realized.
    
      Very easy.  I was done.  I wouldn't touch that version with
      a 100 foot pole.  Not when it doesn't even differentiate
      clearly different words.  
    
      Frankly, I was horrified.
    
    						Tony
                                           

    .33 
    
    :-)  Wow, something we agree on!

    some real pointers for those interested...
    
    The Initial Article
    http://www.worldmag.com/worldmag/03-29-97/cover_1.asp
    
    Some mail
    http://www.worldmag.com/worldmag/04-19-97/mailbag.asp
    
    The Battle for the Bible
    http://www.worldmag.com/worldmag/04-19-97/national_1.asp
    
    Comparison between the 2 versions
    http://www.worldmag.com/worldmag/04-19-97/national_2.asp
    
    Zondervan's reply
    http://www.worldmag.com/worldmag/04-19-97/national_3.asp
    
    World Mag Publisher's Comments
    http://www.worldmag.com/worldmag/04-19-97/publisher.asp
    
    hth,
    
    H

    re: .34
    
    Sometimes I am staggered by the extent of our similarities!
    We're not really the same person in disguise, are we???
    
    					Tony

	This might be the same thing as Micheal Jackson never being seen with
Janet Jackson for all those years and everyone thought they were the same
person. Hmmmm..... Nancy and Tony the same person????? :-)

    :-) Glen, if you only knew. :-) x 100
    
    Tony!
    
    Do I need to take you through creation? :-)

      Yes, please!
    
    					Tony

From looking at the web page, it looks like this 'gender neutral' version of
the NIV DOESN'T do 'vertical' neutrality - i.e. it doesn't change references
to God to be 'gender-neutral.' But it does clearly go far beyond simply
seeking to reflect more accurately what the original text says.

It very clearly approaches the text with the attitude of "We are going to
change what is said by the original text to suit our own sensibilities," an
attitude that I can't support at all.

Paul

    amen Paul

	"Male and female created he them; and blessed them,
	and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	-- Genesis 5:2

	Shalom,
		Tony
			

    I spoke with Lars Dunbar, President of International Bible Society
    during church last Sunday and passed on the concerns which have been
    expressed in this note.  He assured me that the information being
    circulated concerning the "gender inclusive" version of the NIV has
    been distorted to the point of, in his words, "yellow journalism".  
    He added that there has been no decision by IBS to publish such a
    version in the U.S. and that the 500 such bibles printed in the UK
    were printed  at the urging of the evangelical community in the UK.
    He is aware of, and IBS is sensitive to, the issues raised such as
    the  improper use of third-person plural nouns (them, they) where the
    singular noun "man" is clearly intended to be third-person, singular.
    He stated that unless such concerns can be resolved, there will be
    no change to the current NIV.  IBS will soon issue their "first"
    position statement on this matter which will be available to the
    public via their website.
    
    Many of us are aware of the work that the International Bible Society 
    has done to place bibles in the hands of people all over the world.  At
    a time when it was illegal and dangerous to smuggle bibles into former
    Communist countries, the IBS was doing so at great personal risk.  Last
    week, the Colorado Springs police department was called to the head-
    quarters of the IBS after death threats were received against its 
    president and staff.  Brothers and sisters, we should all be careful
    how we speak. James 3:9-10
    
    Larry
    
    
    
    
    
    

 Death threats?? 


 Sheesh...

    A new edition of the NAS is out as well and I'm not sure I agree with
    some of the changes (although gender isn't one I noticed).  I'll keep 
    my old one, thank you.
    
    http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/