The Politically Correct Bible

So the Bible is getting an update. A politically correct version? A more hip version? One that is more with the times? (OK, God really doesn’t mind coveting now). One where hypocrisy is allowed? Not yet.

This is a more insidious way of misinterpreting the Bible. Going under the guise of modernizing the ancient texts, the “translators” are actually rewriting them.

The New International Version, or NIV, was first published in 1978. It was created out of a desire to provide a faithful translation of the Scriptures that spoke the language of 20th century English. Though it is already outdated say many translators.

An article on the Christian Post quotes the scholars as saying that they are looking for a translation that is accurate as well as understandable. So what’s wrong with that, you might ask. The problem is that, whether they realize it or not, along with modernizing the text, they are stealthily changing it.

Past attempts at “modernizing” the Bible were frowned upon in Christian circles, as it was seen as not being true to the original words of God. An earlier attempt to update the NIV failed in 1997 after Christians denounced plans to use gender-inclusive language, which would eliminate the male pronouns in the Bible.

Just changing the gender specific nouns in the bible may sound innocent enough, but according to biblical scholar and my pastor, Dr. Mike Kruger, “in the ancient world the concept of “son” was packed with all kinds of meaning, including the understanding that the son has certain privileges and is heir to the father’s estate, etc. That is all lost if we tamper with the words.”

Biblical scholar, Wayne Grudem, author of The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible, is all for gender neutral language when the original language permits. He said “[it] is an improvement: the word “men” isn’t specified by the Greek text, and “all people” is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun “pas.” Changes like this use gender-neutral language without sacrificing accuracy in translation.”

But the problem is when they change words that have a clear intent. It changes all nuances of meaning.

He gives examples of many of the verses that have been changed. For instance:
Genesis 1:26-27

Current NIV: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image. . . .” So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them.

TNIV: Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image. . . .” So God created human beings in his own image . . . male and female he created them.

Change in meaning: The change from singular “man” to plural “human beings” obscures the unity of the race as “man” (indicated by the singular Hebrew noun “adam”). The word “man” in English can mean either “a male human being” or “the human race,” and thus it is the best translation for Hebrew “adam,” which can also refer either to man in distinction from woman (Gen 2:22, 25) or to the human race as a whole (as here). The TNIV thus fails to convey as much of the meaning of “adam” as it could in English today. Why is the male-oriented aspect of the meaning of the Hebrew word removed?

Inappropriate gender inclusive changes may seem harmless enough, but what’s next? If we change a few pronouns, what’s to stop us from changing a few verbs and proper nouns? It is not a stretch to say that soon we’ll have created God in our own image. Scholars of the Bible realize that every word holds a weight of meaning. It would seem strange for any Christian who believes that all scripture is God breathed to be on board with this.

c. 2009