The New American has a good article that deals with how the revised NIV (NIV 2011) has been received in scholarly circles. One group critical of the NIV 2011 is the Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). The article observes that the Christians for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has made several criticism of the gender inclusive language adopted by the revised NIV.
Below is an excerpt from the article:
One “significant problematic” issue the CBMW found in the NIV update was the translation committee’s decision to render 1 Timothy 2:12 to read that the apostle Paul did not permit a woman to “assume authority” over a man, rather than “have authority,” which it said was more true to the original Greek. While the translation committee explained that it had sought to retain an openness in translating such traditionally controversial passages so that either “egalitarian” or “complementarian” interpretations could be embraced, the CBMW critics charged that the change served instead to intentionally introduce “a crucial ambiguity that is not found in the original NIV.”
The Revised NIV has come under much criticism, not only because of the use of “generic plurals (them/they) in place of singular pronouns (him/he),” but also for adopting readings that do not reflect the Hebrew text. As I wrote before, I had some problems with the NIV, but it was better than the TNIV. So far, I have been disappointed with the NIV 2011, in the same way I was disappointed with the TNIV.
Emeritus Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
NOTE: Did you like this post? Do you think other people would like to read this post? Be sure to share this post on Facebook and share a link on Twitter so that others may enjoy reading it too!
I would love to hear from you! Let me know what you thought of this post by leaving a comment below. Be sure to like my page on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and subscribe to my blog to receive each post by email.