Revision of NIV is good, but still controversial

In March 2011, the copyright owners of the most popular modern translation of the Bible in English, the New International Version (NIV), will publish the first revision of the NIV since 1984.
As a pastor who did not like the over-reaching political correctness of the Today's New International Version (TNIV, copyright 2002), I was concerned when I heard that the NIV itself was going to be revised. But after studying the digital early release version in numerous passages, I have been pleasantly surprised. The revision is more accurate than the 1984 NIV, while maintaining the readability that has made the NIV the most popular modern translation of the Bible. However, at the same time the revision continues to be controversial.
The new NIV retains 95% of the words of the 1984 edition, but where there are changes, it communicates the original meaning better to modern readers and more accurately than before.
Let me address several issues: gender-neutral language, omission of words, and accurate translation of words.
First, the most controversial issue of the TNIV (the earlier failed attempt to revise the NIV) was its gender-neutral language. Where the text often used the male plural "brothers" to refer to all Christians, the TNIV had "brothers and sisters." But it went even farther in Hebrews 12, where scripture speaks of God disciplining us like a father. The TNIV changed "father" to "parent." This was highly controversial, as it implied that God was a gender-neutral "parent" rather than our "heavenly Father." I'm glad to report that the new NIV has "father," just as the 1984 edition had. However, the new NIV, like the TNIV, does use gender-neutral "brothers and sisters" when the context clearly means all believers. Since modern English speakers use both genders, "brothers and sisters," when addressing all believers, not just the masculine "brothers," it makes sense that the Bible they are reading do the same. However, this may not be acceptable to all readers, particularly in passages like Psalm 1, where the masculine pronoun is often associated with a reference to manhood. In the 1984 NIV, Psalm 1 says, "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked... He is like a tree planted by streams of water..." but the 2011 NIV renders it, "Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked...That person is like a tree planted by steams of water..." Some other examples that the revision may have gone too far are in Malachi 4:6 where "fathers" is changed to "parents" and Ezekiel 22:30 where "I looked for a man who would... stand before me in the gap" was changed to "I looked for someone who would... stand before me in the gap."
The revised NIV also continues to say "sons" in Romans 8:14 and "sonship" in Romans 8:15 in a discussion of spiritual adoption which refers to the male heir. Thus it does not use gender-neutral language in places where it would impact theology. The revised NIV also continues to maintain clear sexual distinctions between the genders in passages like Genesis 1:27, which reads, "So God created mankind in his own image...male and female he created them."
The second translation issue is the omission of words. One of the biggest criticisms of the 1984 NIV was that sometimes words in the Greek text simply were not translated. The most notorious example was the Gospel of Mark, which makes frequent use of the Greek word euthus, "immediately." For some reason, there were many verses in the 1984 NIV that simply ignored this word. But the 2011 NIV is careful to translate it as "immediately" or "as soon" etc. in every place where it is used. I have been doing a verse-by-verse study of Romans in the Greek, and comparing the old and new versions of the NIV, I found that where the old NIV omitted the word "or" at the beginning of Romans 3:29, the new NIV restored the word. And in Romans 4:1, the old NIV omitted the words "according to the flesh," but the new NIV put the phrase back in.
The third translation issue is the accurate translation of words. In an attempt to be easy to read, the NIV has been less precise in translating words and phrases. It's a difficult balance for any translation, but sometimes the NIV went too far, by paraphrasing in places that caused the reader to miss the technical point that the Biblical writer was making. For example, the 1984 NIV translates Romans 3:28, "observing the law." But the 2011 NIV translates it, "works of the law." The Greek phrase is literally, "works of the law."
In Romans chapter 8, Paul uses the word "flesh" as a metaphor for the sinful nature. The 1984 NIV translates it "sinful nature," which gets the idea across, but thereby obscures the deliberate play on words in Romans 8:3 when Paul says that when we were weakened by the flesh, God sent Jesus in the flesh. The 1984 NIV has "sinful nature" in these verses, but the 2011 NIV uses the literal word "flesh."
In Romans 8:4, the 1984 NIV says that Jesus' sacrifice satisfied the "righteous requirements" of the law. However, the Greek word translated "requirements" is singular. The 2011 NIV changes it to the singular "requirement." This might seem a minor distinction, but theologically the singular implies that God covers the entirety of our sin, not just some sins.
In Romans 10:4, the 1984 NIV reads, "Christ is the end of the law..." The Greek word used is telos, which means completion. Paul does not mean the law will stop, but that it will be fulfilled. Thus the 2011 NIV reads,"Christ is the culmination of the law..."
Another example is Galatians 5:22, where the 1984 NIV lists "patience" among the fruit of the Spirit. The problem is, that there are two Greek words for patience: one word means patience with circumstances, and one word means patience with people. The word used in Galatians 5:22 means patience with people, so the 2011 NIV translates it "forbearance."
Different readers will have different opinions about the appropriateness of gender-neutral language in the revised NIV. Some will like it, and others will not. Many will feel that it goes too far at times. It is unfortunate that this issue may cloud the discussion of this revision, which is otherwise more accurate than before. People who love the NIV and do not object to saying "brothers and sisters" and other gender-neutral changes should embrace this revision with even more confidence in its accuracy, and people who have preferred more literal translations like the NASB and ESV may want to give the revised NIV a new look.

HCSB Study Bible to be published

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is an excellent Bible translation that premiered in 2004. It is more readable than the New American Standard Bible (NASB), but more accurate than the New International Version (NIV). However, until now there has not been a really good study Bible available in the HCSB, with the exception of the Apologetics Study Bible, which is really intended for scholarly readers. The HCSB Illustrated Study Bible was not really a study Bible, but more of a Bible with a lot of illustrations. The absence of a good popular study Bible in this good translation is about to change in October 2010.
The HCSB Study Bible is due to be published in October 2010. I have had the opportunity to study a preview copy. As a busy pastor, I love the rich resources available all in one volume in the HCSB Study Bible. This study Bible takes some of the good qualities of both the HCSB Illustrated Study Bible and the HCSB Apologetics Study Bible, but much more. The Apologetics Study Bible is more scholarly, whereas the HCSB Study Bible takes a more popular approach. However, don't let that statement mislead you. The HCSB Study Bible is very thorough in dealing with all kinds of issues of Bible interpretation and the footnotes do an excellent job of discussing the important issues of interpretation, historical background and theology. It has all of the things one would expect in a study Bible, including center column cross-references, helpful notes at the bottom of the page, maps, introductions to each book of the Bible and a concordance in the back. But it also has some extras that set it apart from any other study Bible I have seen: word studies of Hebrew and Greek words, timelines to place events in their historical chronology, a Bible reading plan and essays on theological issues. It has an abundance of full-color photographs to illustrate Bible times and places. I particularly like the word studies. When Luke's gospel mentions that Jesus was born of a virgin, at the bottom of the page there is a text box with a more detailed explanation of the Greek word "parthenos," translated "virgin." The footnotes also make frequent explanation of Hebrew and Greek words used and their translation, which is not often found in study Bible footnotes. This may very well be the best study Bible available to date.

My other blogs

I have two other blogs, for those who might be interested:
"Holy Humor" at www.holyhumor.blogspot.com has about one selected column per month from my weekly newspaper column, "Holy Humor," which is published in the Effingham (Rincon, Ga.) Herald and Poplarville (Miss.) Democrat. These are true humorous stories from church life, with a spiritual punchline. Columns go back to 2007.
"Explain the Bible" at www.explainthebible.blogspot.com is a question-and-answer blog. This is a new blog I started in December 2009 almost as a practical necessity. Nearly every week I get an email, phone call or person inquiry from somebody asking me a question about the Bible. With the permission of the questioners, I have posted their first names and their questions, followed by my answers, since other people may be wondering the same things.
Check them out, and if you appreciate the blogs, take time to click on the Google ads and I get credit.

Take my poll on dramatic monologue

For years, I have been doing dramatic monologues in church. In recent years, I memorized the Sermon on the Mount and Paul's Letter to the Philippians to present as a dramatic monologue. Now I'm praying about learning an Old Testament passage. I have selected several key passages, that are about one or two chapters long.
I would like your prayerful opinion about which one to memorize. So cast your vote in the opinion poll at the right on this site.
Thank you for your vote! Feel free to add your comments below, as well.

How prayer can enrich your Bible reading

One of the most important ways to have a balanced Christian life is to balance your prayer life with your Bible reading.
Psalm 119:147 reminds us of the need to balance prayer with Bible reading, as it says, "I rise before dawn and cry for help; I have put my hope in your word."
So when you rise at dawn to pray and read God's word, how do you pray? Here are six key verses in Psalm 119 to guide you:

I. Preparation: What to pray before reading scripture

A. For open eyes (v. 18)
"Open my eyes that I may see
wonderful things in your law."

B. For light to your path (v. 105).
"Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light for my path."

C. For discernment (v. 125)
"I am your servant; give me discernment
that I may understand your statutes."

II. Application: What to pray after reading scripture

A. A sin to confess (v. 11)
"I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you."

B. A promise to claim (v. 38)
"Fulfill your promise to your servant,
so that you may be feared."

C. A resolution to make (v. 112)
"My heart is set on keeping your decrees
to the very end." (NIV)

Like a boy who rides his bicycle downhill with gusto, trying to get momentum when he goes uphill, the psalmist expressed his prayer as he dove into the scripture, and then after he read the scripture, he had the momentum to climb the challenging hills ahead, whether it was a sin to confess, a promise to claim, or a resolution to make, knowing that by faith in God's word he could trust God to make a way.
So can you and I.

Two reactions to the Bible

I read two interesting news stories today on FoxNews.com about two very different reactions to the Bible.
In North Korea, a Christian woman was executed for distributing the Bible.
In Glasgow, Scotland, an "art" display encouraged visitors to deface the Bible to show their contempt for its message.
Two different kinds of hostility were expressed toward God's Word: fear from the North Koreans, hatred from the Scottish "artists." The communists showed more respect for the Bible than the postmodernists.
But both of them illustrate that the Scripture cuts down to the nitty gritty of who we are, and is a scandal and offense to many.

Why should I believe the Bible?

In the runaway bestselling novel, The Da Vinci Code, author Dan Brown claims that Emperor Constantine decided to “rewrite the history books” and so he “commissioned and financed a new Bible” and he “outlawed, gathered up, and burned” the existing gospels (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, p. 234).

While reputable historians have rejected the claims of The Da Vinci Code as having no basis in fact, many people wonder, why should I believe the Bible?

The Bible itself claims to be the Word of God. We read in 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) that “all scripture is God-breathed…” I believe the Bible is the Word of God? Why? Not only does it claim to be the Word of God, but it passes three important tests:

I. It passes the test of corroboration.

In a trial, one of the things a judge or jury look for is corroborating testimony. If one witness sees something, and another witness agrees and says he saw the same thing, it gives extra credence to the truth of his words.

The Bible passes the test of corroboration, because so many other witnesses verify what the Bible says. Here are just a few examples:

Genesis 36:20 says the Horites were descendants of Esau, but some historians doubted they existed. In 1995 Giorgio Buccellati discovered the Horite capital city beneath modern Syrian city of Tell Mozan.

According to 1 Kings 9:28, King Solomon brought back 16 tons of gold from Ophir. But nobody knew that Ophir existed. In 1956 broken pottery found at Tell Qasile in Israel was inscribed, “gold of Ophir for Beth-Horon.”

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that Nero persecuted the Christians, and then explained that “Christus” was crucified under Pontius Pilate, just as the Gospels record.

In 1990 a bone chest was discovered in Jerusalem that was inscribed “Caiaphas” and “Joseph, son of Caiaphas.” John 11 says Caiaphas was the high priest at Jesus’ trial, and Jewish historian Joseph says his full name was “Joseph, called Caiaphas.”

There are literally thousands of these kinds of historical and archaeological discoveries that identify people and places named in the Bible.

II. It passes the test of endurance.

The manuscript evidence of the Bible is an amazing story.

The Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew and some in Aramaic, and copied down by hand. So how trustworthy is the text that has been copied and recopied for several thousand years? We got our answer when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a thousand years older than any other manuscripts available at the time! Scholars eagerly studied them to see what errors would have been made in all those years of copying. To their amazement, there were almost no differences. For example, when they studied the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, which is about 100 pages in English translation, they only found three minor spelling differences, similar to the difference in spelling Savior or Saviour.

The New Testament has by far the best manuscript evidence of any other ancient document. There are 5,400 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that scholars can study to figure out what the original text said. Compare that with the classical works of Plato, Herodotus, and Aristophanes, that have anywhere from one to 20 manuscripts.

At one time, liberal scholars claimed that the Gospel of John must have been written long after John's life, in the late second century. But then a papyrus was discovered in Southern Egypt of the Gospel of John carbon dated to A.D. 125. Since John was probably written at Ephesus, it had to have been written long before A.D. 125 to have time to travel to Southern Egypt.

The Bible has outlasted the empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome. It survived the invasions of the Goths and Vikings and the neglect of the Dark Ages. It survived the skepticism of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Over the centuries, people have attacked the people, banned the Bible and even burned the Bible, but the Bible continues to endure as the number one bestselling book of all time.

III. It passes the test of experience.

Millions of people have read the Bible and found that it spoke to their hearts.

Lewis Wallace was a Union general in the Civil War, and then became governor of the territory of New Mexico. He met the atheist scholar Robert Ingersoll and was unable

to refute Ingersoll’s arguments against the Bible. So he studied everything he could about the life of Jesus, and became convinced that Jesus was everything the Bible says he was. In the process, Wallace wrote a novel, called Ben Hur about a man who meets Jesus and gives his life to Christ.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a Russian who was sent to the Soviet labor camps for eight years for writing disparaging comments about the Soviet leader, Stalin. There he became convinced that only the message of the Bible explained the human condition of sin and gave the solution for changing the human heart. Solzhenitsyn’s writings about the Soviet prisons and Russian history are considered some of the greatest writings about communism in the USSR.

I grew up the son of a U.S. Army chaplain. In the seventh grade, I began to read about ten chapters of the Bible every day. I could not get enough of it, I was so thirsty to read more and know more about the scripture. And the more I read the Bible, the more my life changed. Finally, in the tenth grade, I sensed that God was calling me to preach His Word.

Why do I believe the Bible? It passes the test of corroboration and test of endurance, but most of all, I have experienced it's life-changing message, and so have millions of others. How about you?

Newsweek's desperate case for gay marriage

On December 6, 2008, Newsweek magazine published a front-page article by Lisa Miller, entitled, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." Miller's article has created a firestorm of controversy in the religious community. And no wonder. Miller appears to have had more training from the political community in how to write spin than from Biblical scholarship in how to interpret scripture.

The so-called "case" that Miller builds for gay "marriage" is arrogant, ignorant and desperate.

The arrogant case

Miller arrogantly attacks scripture's clear meaning, referring to the bans on homosexuality in Leviticus as "throwaway lines in a peculiar text" and then has the audacity to say that Paul was "not talking about what we call homosexuality at all" in Romans 1:26-27. For the record, here is the text that she finds so unclear: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26-27, ESV) As if this claim is not outrageous enough, Miller even claims that the Bible "neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." Apparently she has not read Genesis 2:18-24, Proverbs 5:15-20, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12. Miller is so haughty as to pronounce from her throne on high that "no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else's -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes." Which brings us to another major problem with the article: ignorance.

The ignorant case

When Miller says that "no sensible modern person" wants a marriage like one in the Bible, it appears that she missed the Song of Solomon, and the rapturous married love that is celebrated in that wonderful Old Testament book. Actually, her quote is referring in particular to the polygamy of Old Testament heroes like Abraham, David and Solomon. What she fails to notice is that the Bible is brutally honest about its "heroes," showing them with all of their faults. In fact, scriptural narrative reports the problems that resulted from polygamy, including the jealousies of Abraham's wives, David's sexual sin, and how Solomon's wives drew his heart away from the Lord.

Miller refers to Jesus' encounter with the woman at the well in John 4 as a "message of acceptance." Jesus reveals himself to the woman at the well, "no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend." Again Miller misses the point. Jesus does not praise the woman, but rather points out to her that she is living in an immoral relationship, while at the same time showing her that he cares for her soul, in much the same way that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, but told her "go and sin no more" (John 8:11).

The desperate case

Finally, Miller is so desperate to try to justify homosexual marriage that she makes incredible stretches of logic and ridiculous claims. She repeats the popular claim of gay activists that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship, simply because David spoke of their deep love for one another in 2 Samuel 1:26. It is amazing how anybody could read about David's lust for Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 and think that 2 Samuel 1:26 referred to homosexual love.
In dealing with Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1, Miller's article makes the laughable claim that "recently progressive scholars have argued" that Romans 1 was really condemning the promiscuity of emperors Nero and Caligula.
In her final leap of logic, Miller lists the marriages of Moses to the foreigner Zipporah, of Queen Esther to a non-Jew, and of Mary and Joseph as examples of "marriages that defy convention" in the Bible. Desperate to find anything to back up her preconceived ideas, Miller reasons that since these marriages were unconventional, the Bible must therefore justify gay "marriage" as well.

All of this reminds me of something my father, a retired U.S. Army chaplain, told me about Bible interpretation. To illustrate that any two scriptures can be taken out of context and made to appear to say something that they do not really say, Dad gave these two verses: "Judas went and hanged himself…Go ye therefore and do likewise." Lisa Miller's Bible interpretation is just about as dangerous, and Newsweek magazine should be ashamed to print such dribble without even considering another viewpoint for balance.

Barack Obama quotes the Bible (sort of)

Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) quoted the Bible in Ohio yesterday. Unfortunately, his references were sloppy, slippery-slope distortions of God's Word.
According to CNSNews.com, Sen. Obama was at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, when he was asked about homosexual marriage. His reply: "I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
Say what?
It is not clear what he meant by the reference to the Sermon on the Mount, since Jesus' sermon, recorded in Matthew 5-7, never mentions homosexuality. Perhaps Obama was referring to not judging others (Matthew 7:1) or the Golden Rule, doing to others as we would have them do to us (Matthew 7:12). The only thing that is clear is that there are no clear references to homosexual marriage in the Sermon on the Mount, although Jesus does teach faithfulness in heterosexual marriage (Matthew 5:27-32).
As for the "obscure passage in Romans," the Illinois Senator was obviously referring to Romans 1:24-27. Hardly an obscure passage, the apostle Paul begins his greatest theological treatise by stating that men are "without excuse" in their sin, and illustrates this with the sin of homosexuality, which the apostle describes as degraded, unnatural, shameless and a perversion.
Thus Senator Obama dismisses a clear passage of scripture as "obscure", and then makes his own obscure reference to another passage. If anything is "obscure," it is Senator Obama's ability to interpret God's Word.

Question about divorce

I received the following question by email from someone from another church who has granted permission for me to post the question and my reply:

"I have consulted my pastor and other pastors concerning our Baptist teachings about divorce and remain confused. I am divorced. I made an oath at my wedding of "til death do us part" and finished with "so help me God." Even though adultery entered my spouse's life, do I remain bound by my oath? Did you do a blog on this topic? Or, better yet ... will you do one and let me know."

Dear Friend,
I understand that you are already divorced, apparently because of your spouse's adultery, and your question is, "do I remain bound by my oath?"
It appears there are two parts to your question. First, the question of whether your divorce was permissable, and second, the question of whether you are free to remarry. So let's take the two issues separately:
1. The question of permissable divorce. According to Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:32, adultery is a permissable reason for divorce. Thus if your spouse committed adultery, you did have biblical grounds for divorce. The other biblical ground for divorce is found in 1 Corinthians 7:15, when one spouse is an unbeliever and leaves.
(I would caution readers, however, that just because your spouse commits adultery or leaves you for a time does not mean that you should rush into a divorce. If at all possible, you should seek a counselor and seek restoration in your marriage. I have known couples who suffered adultery and other problems in their relationship who were able to experience repentance, forgiveness and restoration.
The second caution I would give to readers is that if you are suffering physical abuse or severe verbal abuse, you may need to separate for your own safety. Remember, this separation is with a goal for restoration if possible, not divorce.)

2. The question of remarriage after divorce. You mentioned "our Baptist teachings about divorce." While I am glad to be a Baptist, we must make certain that our teachings come from the Bible, not Baptist tradition or any other tradition that contradicts scripture.
Jesus recognized the fact that the woman at the well had five husbands, although she was cohabitating with the man she was with at the time she met Jesus, and that man was not her husband (John 4:17-18). By this statement, Jesus recognized each of these five marriages as true marriages.
A common "Baptist teaching" about Matthew 5:32 is that it bans remarriage after divorce, because it says that anyone who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
However, the New Testament Greek verb used in the original text used the passive voice, which means the subject receives the action, rather than causing the action. In other words, divorce is a stigma that the husband puts on his wife by divorcing her. It is something the first husband does to the woman and the man she remarries. The stigma is being divorced and being married to a divorced person. Notice in the verse that the stigma occurs whether or not there is ever a remarriage, because it says "anyone who divorces his wife... causes her to become an adulteress." Notice he causes the adultery before any remarriage. It could be translated, that he adulterizes her. This is referring to the stigma of divorce.
I recognize that this is a controversial passage, and there are differences of opinion about it, but I do not think the scripture teaches that remarriage after divorce is automatically a sin.