Roger Pearse has years of experience in translating ancient texts. His qualifications give credence to issues he expresses with the latest efforts to revise the NIV which includes greater gender-inclusivity in the grammar. No punches are pulled as he states:
The translation committee was warned some years ago about this "sowing to the wind." Certainly there will be a political response to assuage both PETA and the Christian community, but why be in a position that necessitates this action? My general dislike for this translation is now more a disdain.
The editing of the NIV for “gender-inclusivity” — to conform to the political demands of those who have power today, in more honest language – would be disgusting and dishonest whichever text was involved. But to do it to what purports to be the Word of God is an appalling blasphemy.He goes on to note that PETA is now seeking to have animals no longer be referred as "it" but "he" or "she" in this revision. I recommend the brief comments and link to the main article.
The translation committee was warned some years ago about this "sowing to the wind." Certainly there will be a political response to assuage both PETA and the Christian community, but why be in a position that necessitates this action? My general dislike for this translation is now more a disdain.
3 comments:
This is getting ridiculous when PETA has a say in a Bible translation. The original NIV was a good balance between dynamic and formal translation, but even that was a bit too interpretive for a lot of people. I like it, but use it more often as a commentary. However, every attempt to "update" this translation has been a way to head to more and more apostasy. It shows how getting a foot in the door with the original NIV has led to this sort of foolishness.
Originally, I was surprised that PETA would want to broach this subject at all. But after thinking about it, many Bible translators are working to remove designations expressly stated in the original manuscripts. PETA probably now see Christianity as a malleable sociological construct that can be formed to their way of thinking.
And why not? Every other group with a social agenda - especially those of the social gospel - see the Bible as something malleable, so why not PETA?
Post a Comment