|
Selected Illustrations of NIV
Masking of Masculinity
In the table below, contrasting
translations are highlighted in bold.
| Text |
Greek / Hebrew |
NIV 2011 |
NASB |
| James
1:5 |
someone
(tis =
indefinite pron., masc.); lacks (leipetai = 3rd pers
verb); let that one ask
(aiteitw =
3rd pers. imperative verb); to all (pasin
= indef. pl. pron. masc.); to
him (autw
= 3rd pers. masc. personal pron.) |
If any
of you lacks wisdom, you
should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and
it will be given to you. |
But if
any of you lacks wisdom, let
him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without
reproach, and it will be given to him. |
| Comments |
Most
Hebrew words are masculine in
gender, but typically, their gender would be unnoticeable in
translation. There are two masculine words in
this verse that have a bearing on translation. To avoid using these
masculine words, the NIV incorrectly
alters a 3rd person verb to 2nd person, and a 3rd person pronoun to 2nd
person. |
| James
1:7 |
the
(ho = definite article, masc. sing.) man (anthropos = masc. sing.
noun) that (ekeinos = masc. sing. demonstrative pronoun)
|
That
person
should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.
|
For
that man
ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the
Lord,
|
| Comments |
NASB
translates anthropos
as some variety of Man, man, man's, men, or men's = 495 X; people = 14
X; human = 5 X; mankind = 5 X. All other translations are less than 5
X. Man is clearly the normal translation here. To translate anthropos
as person
is certainly possible, but in no way demanded, unless, of course, one
has a particular agenda. The difficulty here is that in James 1:8 a
synonym is used that has an even more masculine connotation than anthropos,
yet NIV translates both with the same word. Clearly there is an agenda
here. The NIV, by its gender-based
policy, is circumventing the
masculinity that is present in the Bible as it was written. |
| James
1:8 |
man (aner
= masc. sing. noun) double-minded (dipsuchos = masc. sing. adjective)
unstable in all the ways of him (autou = 3rd pers. masc. sing.
personal pronoun, agrees with aner)
|
Such
a person is
double-minded and unstable in all they
do.
|
being
a double-minded man,
unstable in all his
ways.
|
| Comments |
Aner
is specifically male as opposed to female; adult man as
distinct
from a boy; a husband as distinct from a wife (in that context). NASB
translates aner
as man = 71 X; men = 70 X; husband = 39 X; husbands = 13 X; brethren =
13 X; man's = 2 X; gentlemen = 1 X; virgin = 1 X (in 1 Cor. 7:34, where
it refers to an unmarried male). There is no justifiable reason for
translating aner
as person, unless of course, a translator wishes to conceal
masculinity. Clearly, the NIV translators have a gender-based
agenda,
otherwise they would at least have translated aner
as man. In order to maintain their facade, the NIV translators are
forced to mistranslate a 3 pers. masc. sing personal pronoun as a third
plural. There is no justifiable reason, apart from the translators'
unisex agenda in passages in which there is clearly a
masculine
overtone. |
| Psalm
8:4 (8:5 in Hebrew) |
what is
man (enosh
= ordinarily man); you take thought of
him (zakar
= verb ends
with a 3rd pers. masc. sing. suffix); son of man (ben = son; adam = man); care
for him
(paqad
= verb ends with a 3rd pers. masc. sing. suffix). |
what is
mankind that you are mindful of
them, human
beings that you care for
them? |
What is
man that You take thought of
him, And the
son of man that You care for him? |
| Comments |
Mankind
can be
an acceptable translation of enosh.
However, in this context, "mankind" runs into problems for the NIV
because the last half of the first line ends in a 3rd person. masc.
sing. suffix = him, and that is anathema for the NIV. So it twice
mistranslates a 3rd pers. singular verb suffix as a 3rd pers. plural,
both at the end of the first line (mindful of them) and at the
end of the second line (care for
them.) As unwarranted as these suffixed mistranslations
are, the NIV's mistranslation of "son of man" as "human beings" is over
the top. Son (ben)
is masculine singular and so is man (adam). David is
amazed that God takes notice of a single son of man. The text is
deliberately
singular and masculine, although preachers and teachers can
legitimately apply the passage to women also, of
course. But the NIV's mistranslation obscures any prospect of Messianic
implications, as Si
Cochran points out. In a NT Messianic passage, the writer of
Hebrews (in 2:6)
quotes Psalm 8:4 (and there the NIV
quotes it more accurately, by the way). So, in the NIV's
efforts to obscure gender, it obscures theology. |
| 1 John
2:9-11 |
9 the (ton = masc. sing.
article) brother (adelphos
= masc. sing. noun) of him (autou
= 3rd pers. masc. sing. personal pronoun) hating (miswn = pres. tense
masc. sing. participle). 10 the one (ho = masc. sing.
article) loving (agapwn
= pres. tense masc. sing. ptcpl) the (ton = masc. sing.
article) brother (adelphos
= masc. sing. noun) of him (autou = 3rd pers.
masc. sing. personal pronoun). cause for stumbling (skandalon)
in him (en autw
= 3rd pers. masc. sing. pronoun) not (ouk) is (estin = pres. tense
3rd pers. sing. 11 the one (ho = masc.
sing. article), moreover (de
= coordinating conjunction), hating (miswn
= pres. tense masc. sing. ptcpl) the (ton = masc. sing.
definite
article) brother (adelphon
= masc. sing. noun) of him (autou
= 3rd
masc. sing. personal pronoun); and (kai
= coord. conj.) not (ouk
=
negative particle) does he know (oiden
= perfect tense 3rd pers. sing.
verb) where (pou
= interrogative adverb) he is going (hupagei = pres.
tense 3rd pers. sing. verb) because (hoti =
subordinating conjunction)
the (he
= fem. sing. def. article) darkness (skotia = fem. sing.
noun) has blinded (entuphlwsen
= aorist tense 3rd person sing. verb)
the (tous =
masc. plural def. article) eyes (ophthalmous
= masc. plural
noun) of him (autou
= 3rd pers. sing. masc. personal pronoun). |
9
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister[a]
is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister[b]
lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them
stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a
brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in
the darkness. They
do not know where they
are going, because the darkness has blinded them. |
9The
one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in
the darkness until now. 10The one who loves his brother abides
in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11But the
one who hates his brother
is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because
the darkness has blinded his
eyes. |
| Comments |
In
order to achieve its agenda
of minimizing masculinity to achieve gender
equality, the NIV
translators (1) have added six words where none exist in the Greek
text: or sister,
and sister,
or sister,
respectively, in each verse; (2) have substituted the indefinite
article a
for the 3rd masc. sing. possessive
pronoun his
in v. 9. This minimizes the consequences of hating one's own
personal Christian brother he possesses; (3) have substituted the 3rd
pers. plural possessive pronoun their
for the 3rd pers. singular possessive pronoun his
in v. 10. This dilutes the benefits of loving one's own Christian
brother which he possesses; (4) have substituted the 3rd person plural
personal pronoun in them
to avoid using the 3rd person masculine singular personal pronoun in him
found in the Greek text in v. 10. This dilutes the urgency of each
Christian striving to avoid being a stumbling block; (5) have twice
substituted the 3rd person plural They
do not know where they
are going for the 3rd person masculine singular he does not know
where he
is going in v. 11. Again, this dilutes the impact of the consequence
that each of us individually faces if we hate our Christian brother;
(6) have substituted the third person plural pronoun them for the 3rd
person masculine singular possessive pronoun his
in v. 11. This minimizes the impact of hating one's own Christian
brother, which is that each one personally does not know where he is
going because the darkness has blinded his very own eyes which he
possesses; (7) have omitted the word eyes
found in the Greek text. This has nothing to do with a gender agenda,
but rather was a stylistic decision. The main point we learn from this
passage is that political correctness in gender language justifies
adding words to the Bible that do not exist in the original Greek text.
To their credit, the translators footnote two of the three additions of
sister
and at least allude to
the third. But in the main text of the NIV 2011, words have been added
that Christ did not authorize by the hand of His apostle,
John. In
this passage, in my view, the NIV is no longer a faithful translation,
but an agenda-driven paraphrase. |
| Deuteronomy
6:2a |
you (atah = emphatic
personal pronoun masc. sing.); and your son (benecha = masc.
sing. noun with 2nd masc. sing suffix [your]) and the son of your son (ben-benecha = masc.
sing. noun followed by the same word with a 2nd pers. masc. sing.
suffix) |
so that
you, your children
and their children after them
may fear the LORD your God |
so that
you and your son
and your grandson might fear
the LORD your God, |
| Comments |
Israel
was a patriarchal culture
because that is the way God designed it to be. At least 589 times in
the Old Testament the phrase "sons of Israel" appears, at least as
translated by the NASB. Even the KJV misses out on this, typically
translating "Children of Israel." God made His covenant with a man,
Abraham, with His son of promise, Isaac, and with his son of promise,
Jacob / Israel, and with Israel's twelve sons. By extension, the nation
came to be known as the Sons of Israel. Here the male leader, Moses,
was addressing the male heads of families and instructing them to pass
on the fear of God to their sons and the the sons of their sons. Does
that mean that women and daughters were exempt from fearing God? Of
course not. What it does mean is that if the men of the nation fear
God, the whole nation will fear God, because God designed men to be the
leaders of families and leaders of clans and leaders of nations.
Deuteronomy 6:1-10 accurately reflects that milieu. To obscure the
order that God has designed will undermine the family, undermine the
church, and undermine the nation. Feminism has done all three of
these. Feminism has created a huge and destructive backlash
against men and fathers and patriarchalism, and we are all the worse
off in every way because of it, socially, economically, and
spiritually. Patriarchalism comes from God, for He is the
ultimate
Father. Paul wrote in Ephes.
3:14-15, For
this reason I bow my knees before the Father (patera), from
whom
every family (patria) in heaven and on earth derives its name..." To
lash out against the order that God has decreed is to lash out against
God. Of course there are terrible abuses of patriarchalism. One need
look no farther than many instances in the Muslim world to prove that.
But there is nothing finer than a Christian family led by a Christian
father who loves his wife and she willingly submits to him, and in
which the father takes his job as the family leader and priest
seriously and leads his family to follow God through Jesus in
whole-hearted devotion. There is no finer family anywhere in
the
world than that kind of family. Feminism militates against that kind of
family, and the NIV 2011, in my judgment, makes matters worse, not
better because of its apparent abhorrence of masculinity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a
1 John 2:9. The Greek word
for brother or sister
(adelphos)
refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s
family; also in verse 11; and in 3:15, 17; 4:20; 5:16.
b
1 John 2:10. The Greek word
for brother and sister
(adelphos)
refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s
family; also in 3:10; 4:20, 21.
Return to Bibliology
Home Page
Return to Bible
Versions Page
(Scripture quotations taken
from
the NASB except as otherwise indicated.)
|
