In 2011 gee Zondervan a ‘gender-neutral’ NIV vertaling uit. Die NIV (1984) is die Engelse vertaling wat tans die meeste verkoop regoor die wêreld, maar daar is baie ongelukkigheid oor die nuutste uitgawe (2011).
Sien die volgende deeglike evaluering deur die CBMW:
An Evaluation of Gender Language in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible
Hier is ‘n paar aanhalings wat die aard van hierdie vertaling uitwys (beklemtonings bygevoeg), met ‘n vraag daarna:
“The 2011 NIV adopts feminist-leaning translations in several key verses dealing with women’s role in the church
We expect that evangelical feminists who claim that women can be pastors and elders will eagerly adopt this 2011 NIV because it tilts the scales in favor of their view at several key verses. This is especially true because the new NIV changes the primary verse in the debate over women‘s roles in the church.
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (same as TNIV, but with modified footnotes)
Evangelical feminists will love this translation because in one stroke it removes the Bible‘s main barrier to women pastors and elders. As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV, the debate over women‘s roles in that church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, “I‘m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.” Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to :assume authority”.
The NIV‘s translation committee says that the translation “assume authority” is “a particularly nice English rendering because it leaves the question open.” In other words, “assume authority” could be understood in two different ways: a negative way (meaning “wrongly assume authority on one‘s own initiative”) or a positive way (meaning “begin to use authority in a rightful way”). But in saying this the NIV translators fail to understand the full force of what they have done: They have given legitimacy to a feminist interpretation that did not have legitimacy from any other modern English translation (except the discontinued TNIV). “
“Several other verses have also been changed from the 1984 NIV, and all the changes have moved in the same feminist direction.
Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (same as TNIV, except for footnote)
This verse changes “Junias” (a man‘s name) to “Junia” (a woman‘s name; the Greek spelling could refer to either a man or a woman), and now says that “Andronicus and Junia” are “outstanding among the apostles,” thus making the woman “Junia” an apostle. This is a highly disputed verse, but the NIV now clearly gives more weight to the feminist argument that says there was at least one woman apostle, and if a woman could be an apostle (like Paul or Peter, presumably), surely women can be pastors and elders as well.”
” Making Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1 will be of concern to churches where male deacons have a governing role over the church
In a somewhat related verse, one other change should be noted that will be of concern to some churches:
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon [footnote: or servant] of the church in Cenchreae. (same as TNIV)
This verse changes Phoebe from a ‘servant’ to a ‘deacon’ of the church at Cenchrea, and thereby it endorses women as deacons. Both translations are possible meanings for the Greek word diakonos, and the decision must be made from the larger New Testament context. (In the entire New Testament, the TNIV translates diakonos as ‘deacon’ only 4 times out of 29 occurrences: here in Rom. 16:1 and in three verses where no individual is named but a church office is clearly in view: Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, and 12.)”
The 2011 NIV makes several noteworthy improvements over the 1984 NIV and the 2005 TNIV, including 933 improvements in accuracy in translating gender language in places where CBMW had criticized the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. And the entire translation process was carried on in a commendable spirit of transparency and openness, for which Zondervan and the NIV‘s Committee on Bible Translation are to be appreciated.
However, the 2011 NIV was based not on the current NIV (1984) but on the TNIV (2005). The 2011 NIV retains 2,766 (or 75%) of the TNIV‘s problematic gender-related translations that led CBMW, and eventually the larger evangelical world, to reject the TNIV in 2002 and 2005. We still consider these 2,766 examples to be inaccurate translations of terms that have male meaning in the original Hebrew or Greek, male meaning that is lost in this new NIV. Therefore, this translation cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language or in its translation of singular and plural pronouns generally. We consider this too high a price to pay for attaining gender-inclusiveness in a translation.
In addition, the 2011 NIV changes some key verses on women‘s role in the church so that they favor an evangelical feminist position, especially in translating 1 Timothy 2:12 in a way that differs with all other commonly-used modern English translations and that gives women a wide open door to serve as pastors and elders in churches, contrary to the actual teaching of the New Testament.
We regret, therefore, that we cannot recommend the 2011 NIV as a sufficiently reliable English translation. And unless Zondervan changes its mind and keeps the current edition of the 1984 NIV in print, the 2011 NIV will soon be the only edition of the NIV that is available. Therefore, unless Zondervan changes its mind, we cannot recommend the NIV itself.”
Nou is die vraag: wanneer gaan ons in SA ons eerste ‘geslags-neutrale-feministies-vriendelike’ vertaling kry ?
Of word daar gewag totdat die moelikste suster, die GKSA ook nou uiteindelik (amptelik) ingee voor die feministiese polities-korrekte tydsgees. Januarie 2012 is om die draai, sodat al die susters (amper sê ek die ‘three ugly sisters’, maar ek sal nie), saam kan werk aan ‘n vertaling wat almal akkomodeer en tevrede stel, behalwe bybelsgetroue gelowiges ?
Die Nuwe Vertaling filosofie het reeds die weg daartoe begin baan.