Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
debrand

The New NIV Is Bad For Women

Recommended Posts

debrand

Because I am not a bible theologian, I can't speak to all of this posters points but I thought some of you might better able to do so. I found a link to her article on LAF, so it is reasonable to suppose that she shares their ideology.

 

girlsgonewise.com/10-reasons-why-the-new-niv-is-bad-for-women

 

She claims the NIV hurts women. I fail to see how that is possible.

 

 

Quote
understand that language changes over time, and that translation is not always an easy task. But I am saddened that Christians seem so eager to jump on the cultural bandwagon to update God’s Holy Book with inclusive language. I don’t think they realize what is at stake. I have had students struggle with understanding concepts about God because their native language did not lend itself to translating/expressing the gendered concepts that exist in the original languages of the Bible. We will lose something very critical and essential if we lose the linguistic concepts afforded us by the gendered nature of English. Retaining gender distinctiveness in our language is a battle worth fighting. There is a great deal at stake.

 

She can buy any bible translation that she wants. No one is going to stop her from buying a KJV if she wishes. But I am curious what concept about the Christian god someone from another culture couldn't understand. She doesn't give any examples.

 

 

Quote
5. It demeans women:

Gender inclusive Bibles imply that women are too stupid to figure out that in the Bible, the words “man†and “brothers†are inclusive terms. The male translators have to fix the words for us, since we’re not theologically astute enough or bright enough to get it on our own. Quite frankly, I feel like gender-inclusive Bibles insult a woman’s intelligence.

 

6. It patronizes women:

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don’t get hurt. Boo hoo. Women are so easily offended. Sorry, . . . but changing the words of the Bible because you think some women might be offended by its language is downright patronizing.

 

Again, I don't know but isn't the NIV more accurate in its translation of the text? English is not the original language of scripture so it makes sense that a modern translation would use words from out time period that are more precise-at least to us. That has nothing to do with demeaning or uplifting women. If the word,people is a better fit for a Hebrew word than, man, why not use that word?

Edited by OnceUponATime
adding tags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bananacat

She is a language prescriptivist of the worst kind. She is too stupid to realize that language changes over time, even though she thinks she does. "Man" and "brothers" are no longer inclusive the way they were just a few decades ago. She might be pissed about that change, but it's still a real change. So the newest version isn't translated to be inclusive; it's translated to better reflect our more modern definitions of many words. She's not really mad about the Bible changing; she's mad that culture culture has already changed in a way she doesn't like, and the Bible catching up with that makes it harder for her to live in her stupid little bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamuraiKatz

I like the Good News translation of the Bible. I certainly don't feel like I'm missing something because it's not in the "original" King James vernacular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alcyone

The author's fear that translators will eventually "update God's names so that HE becomes more gender inclusive", is actually my hope. I wouldn't care much about this issue if it were not for the fact that some fundies actually believe that God is a male being. I had a short discussion with one blogger about it but I got nowhere.(God as a male? Huh? Does he actually have a beard, too, like on the first page of the Beginner's Picture Bible?) I think the author of this piece is the one who is being condescending in her tone and in her refusal to look at the real consequences of language. It just gives those who want to furthur divide the sexes and venerate "male-ness" more fuel for their fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.