SBC rejection of the NIV 2011

[C. M. Sheffield]

A word to my Presbyterian friends,

A Resolution being characterized as merely advice to the churches of the convention is incorrect. You must remember that the Convention is a convention of churches. When they gather and make resolutions on any matter, they serve principally as corporate declarations or memorials on that matter. They are significant statements because of the great theological and practical diversity represented in these 40,000 independent churches. Theological or practical consensus of any kind among so many independent evangelical churches is remarkable.

I'm a Southern Baptist and one of the conventions biggest critics. However, when the largest evangelical denomination in the United States makes a corporate declaration to affirm biblical principles of translation and to denounce those who undermine these principles, I think that's most commendable and I thank God for it.

 

[Jack K]

I don't think I like the 2011 NIV. But I wonder if this resolution was truly about affirming good principles of biblical translation or if it was actually more about affirming what's traditional. Are the SBC messengers really educated on the particular issue, or are they likely thinking more broadly—something like "I liked the old NIV and the new one is too different plus it's gender-inclusive which must mean liberal so it's bad"?

I'm not implying I know. I'm really asking the question.

 

[JohnGill]

I don't think I like the 2011 NIV. But I wonder if this resolution was truly about affirming good principles of biblical translation or if it was actually more about affirming what's traditional. Are the SBC messengers really educated on the particular issue, or are they likely thinking more broadly—something like "I liked the old NIV and the new one is too different plus it's gender-inclusive which must mean liberal so it's bad"?

I'm not implying I know. I'm really asking the question.

It appears the latter from the following site: NIV 2011 (©2010) | sbcIMPACT

And the following quote from the article linked in the OP:

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

Considering that the NIV opens up the Christian worldview to the reductio ad absurdum by introducing real contradictions, it cannot be that they are "affirming good principles of biblical translation" as you put it. Otherwise they are being self-contradictory.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

And let's stop confounding what LifeWay does as being what the convention does or vice versa. These two are not the same. They are separate entities. So the convention denouncing one translation while LifeWay has other bad translations on its shelf isn't hypocritical or inconsistent because these two entities are not one and the same.

---------- Post added at 01:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

And let me also strongly protest the ones on this thread intent on doing nothing but finding fault with their brethren in the SBC. Your attitudes are not in keeping with 9th commandment when calling the motives of these messenger into question - Something no man is qualified to do. If you take exception to the resolution itself, then do so on the merits of what's written, but beyond that we should be careful not to denigrate the character of those who supported this resolution.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

 

[Rangerus]

And let's stop confounding what LifeWay does as being what the convention does or vice versa. These two are not the same. They are separate entities. So the convention denouncing one translation while LifeWay has other bad translations on its shelf isn't hypocritical or inconsistent because these two entities are not one and the same.

---------- Post added at 01:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

And let me also strongly protest the ones on this thread intent on doing nothing but finding fault with their brethren in the SBC. Your attitudes are not in keeping with 9th commandment when calling the motives of these messenger into question - Something no man is qualified to do. If you take exception to the resolution itself, then do so on the merits of what's written, but beyond that we should be careful not to denigrate the character of those who supported this resolution.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

hear, hear! Who knows what may now occupy the new “middle ground” where the NIV once stood between formal and dynamic equivalence.

 

[elnwood]

I really hope "Baptists" don't see the Jerusalem Council as "friendly advice" and "non-binding".

Good question, Ben. The Jerusalem Council advised to abstain from blood, but most Baptists I know don't uphold this as binding. Do Presbyterians think it is? And if not, when did it become no longer binding?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Acts 16:4 makes it quite clear the decisions of the Jerusalem Council were binding on all churches.

 

[elnwood]

Acts 16:4 makes it quite clear the decisions of the Jerusalem Council were binding on all churches.

The Jerusalem Council advised to abstain from blood, but most Baptists I know don't uphold this as binding. Do Presbyterians think it is? And if not, when did it become no longer binding?

 

[elnwood]

Douglas Moo, representing the NIV Committee on Bible Translation wrote a response to the SBC resolution:
http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-sbc.pdf

More substantive is his response to CBMW:
http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-cbmw-review.pdf

Our gender decisions simply reflect what the data are telling us about the state of modern English. Let us say it as emphatically as we can: the NIV translators have never been motivated by a concern to avoid giving offense. We were simply following what wide-ranging, objective research tells us about the state of modern English.

In particular, I think CBMW's insistence to use "fathers" or "forefathers" instead of "ancestors" is particularly blind to modern English usage.

We object to the "guilt-by-association" labeling of some of our translations. The review notes some renderings in the updated NIV that are adopted also by "feminist" interpreters. Yet they fail to note that many of these same renderings are also adopted by complementarian interpreters. (For instance, "assume authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12 is Calvin's rendering.) The fact that egalitarians and complementarians alike adopt many of these translations suggests that, in fact, there is broad scholarly support in favor of these conclusions.

It's worth noting that not only is Doug Moo a complementarian, but he actually wrote the article "What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?" in CBMW's own book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

 

[Rufus]

Acts 16:4 makes it quite clear the decisions of the Jerusalem Council were binding on all churches.

The Jerusalem Council advised to abstain from blood, but most Baptists I know don't uphold this as binding. Do Presbyterians think it is? And if not, when did it become no longer binding?

I know the Greek Orthodox still abstain from blood.

 

[au5t1n]

I never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but good for the SBC!

 

[Pergamum]

A hierarchical church polity doesn't seem to be helping many presbyterian denominations.

Heresy often comes from above and through the seminaries and is often spread through hierarchical channels.

 

[sevenzedek]

HarperCollins doesn't seem to mind publishing the Satanic Bible. Maybe they won't mind if Zondervan (a division of HarperCollins) publishes the new 2011 NIV (flaws or no flaws). Satanic Bible? Yup. Hey, I'm just saying...

This fact just makes a bit uncomfortable. Anyone have anything to say about THAT?