The Southern Baptists, meeting in convention in Phoenix, AZ this past Tuesday and Wednesday, in a surprising and dramatic move yesterday afternoon voted first to consider a resolution highly critical of the NIV 2011 and then passed the resolution nearly unanimously. The resolution asking Southern Baptists to refrain from using, buying or selling the new NIV translation came from the floor and not from the Resolutions Committee. The appeal to consider the resolution passed by at least a 2-to-1 margin, and the resolution itself got only a handful of opposing votes. The Resolutions Committee had asked that the resolution not be considered.
The resolution states (from here):
WHEREAS, Many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and
WHEREAS, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and
WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and
WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and
WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and
WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and
WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God’s inspired Scripture; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community.
Related Articles
15 users responded in this post
Legalism. My heart longs for a time when Christians can spend their time fighting issues that truly grieve the Father’s heart.
I guess they aren’t NIV positive.
I’m an NASB & ESV guy anyway.
Surprise, surprise! I went to private Baptist college and we were allowed to have Dances only if we didn’t call them that…they were Foot Social instead! Yup, signs all over the school announced our monthly Foot Socials. They were so much more fun, too! We thought we were getting away w/ a murder. And that was 1996. Not that long ago!
I bet NIV will be much more fun to read now since it’s forbidden. Ha!
Not really surprising. The southern baptist convention changed the language in their confession of faith to specifically define gender as part of the goodness of God’s creation. I think the decision, whether you agree or disagree, is fully and justifiably in alignment with the SBC doctrine. They believe that the increasingly gender-neutral language of the NIV was weakening the translation and, in their eyes, undermining their “commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture.”
Actually, ‘Gender’ Neutrality language alters core doctrine – marriage, human identity, marriage, the Church, male and female, two sexes in God’s design and others.
GN language also bends to the purposes and arguments of the pansexual (LBGTQ, etc.) agenda.
The Baptists know what they are doing here and why they are doing it. They are defending the Faith.
No surprise at all. And I agree with them. I’m no scholar but like the ESV too.
There is an online interactive Bible called the NET Bible that I have found very helpful.
It’s the ongoing work of leading (conservative/orthodox) scholars and endorsed by others.
You can click on a verse and get the Hebrew, Greek, KJV, and other translations to compare.
I use that, Biblegateway, Strong’s Concordance online and the Blue Letter Bible Lexionary when trying to get the full meaning.
I have an ESV study bible, but prefer the 1984 NIV Study notes.
Link to Net Bible – http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php
Blue Letter – http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5287&Version=KJV
Strong’s Concordance, etc. – http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
Steve, wondering what you think about this????
Danny, I think the NIV was problematic in 1984 (until the ESV I’d often used the NASB). I’d expect the 2011 NIV to be no better. NT Wright in his lecture on Romans in the School of Theology class we hold spent quite a bit of time highlighting the very problematic NIV translation of Romans alone.
I like Michaela’s second comment. I wonder if it will now take the likes of Brother Andrew to smuggle a 2011-NIV into a Baptist church service?
But for those of us who followed the TNIV controversy, this is all old news. Mark Strauss wrote extensively about this in How To Choose A Bible Translation for All It’s Worth. If it says “anthropos” in the original it can mean “male or female;” “male and female;” or just plain “person.”
This resolution is about preferences, and has little to do with either doctrine, theology, or Bible translation.
Well spoken Sibyl.
I also think Todd should provide a summary of the aforementioned Romans lecture given his recent success in passing Greek.
I use the ESV and I have been surprised at times when it is “gender neutral” in places where the ’84 NIV is gender specific. I think, however, that the ESV is simply being accurate and using an inclusive word where the underlying Greek is “male or female” in its meaning.
What I do not like about the TNIV way of doing things is that it takes single references, such as Ps 1, “Blessed is the man” and makes it plural, “Blessed are they.” It could have said, “Blessed is the one who” instead. Ps 1 and some other places are veiled references to the Lord Jesus, who of all humanity perfectly fulfills them, and so need to have that implicit reference remain.