The debate over the new Todays New International Version
Bible under-scores why translators should concentrate more on word-for-word
translations and less on interpretation, Albert Mohler insisted.
“This is the Word of God were dealing with –
not just any ancient text,” said Mohler, president of Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
The debate over the new Todays New International Version
Bible under-scores why translators should concentrate more on word-for-word
translations and less on interpretation, Albert Mohler insisted.
“This is the Word of God were dealing with –
not just any ancient text,” said Mohler, president of Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
Mohler recently appeared the NBC Weekend Today show with Grant
Osborne, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in
Deerfield, Ill. The segment concentrated on the New Testament version of the
gender-neutral Todays New International Version Bible.
Mohler opposes the new translation; Osborne supports it.
While Mohler acknowledged Christians on both sides of the debate
respect the Bible and want to see it rightly translated, he said Todays
New International Version translators have performed a disservice.
“There are basic principles here at stake, and our concern
is that making these decisions in this translation will lead to even further
compromises of the text,” the seminary president said. “The further
we get from the direct word-for-word translation of the Scripture, the more
interpretation enters the whole context of the translation. There is great loss
there.”
However, Osborne countered that translators simply were trying
to arrive at a more contemporary translation.
“The purpose has always been to keep it contemporary,
to have it speak to the people and to go with the language of the people,”
he said. “Language has been changing over the last few decades, and we
no longer really use he for both men and women. The purpose of inclusive
language is to speak the way the people speak, and I think thats what
were trying to do. Therefore, whoever believes, translates
and speaks better than, he who believes.”
Noting the original New International Version was completed
in 1978, Mohler countered that the English language has not seen a dramatic
shift in recent years.
“The problem with this new translation is that it assumes
the English language has changed in a momentous way in just the last 25 years,
…” he said. “I think this reflects an ideological agenda. … I
think it does a disservice to the Word of God.”
“Weekend Today” host David Bloom asked Mohler if
he thought the translators had a political agenda.
“Im not even sure the translators are concerned
with being politically correct,” he responded. “But I think the changes
in the language to which they point have been the result of political correctness,
and because of this translation, we are getting further and further from the
original text. These translators are making some decisions that, frankly, I
think are injurious to the translation. Instead of clarifying the text, they
will confuse it.”
Both Mohler and Osborne were asked to comment on specific changes
in the Todays New International Version.
Mohler was asked about John 6:35.
In the New International Version, the verse reads, “Then
Jesus declared, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never
go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
The Todays New International Version changes “he
who” to “whoever.”
“Lets note that the change from he to
whoever is not just a change of pronoun,” Mohler said. “It
also brings other issues of meaning concerning who he is. I think
that the translation ought to be as close as possible to the original language,
and then lets get on with the task of interpreting what the text means.
But that change is not insignificant. Obviously, Jesus is saying there that
whether he or she comes to him, he will be received. But I think this is the
wrong place to make that change in the translation.”
Osborne was asked about Acts 17:22.
In the New International Version, it reads, “Paul then
stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: Men of Athens! I see
that in every way you are very religious.”
The Todays New International Version uses “people”
instead of “men.”
The question is whether Paul was addressing a crowd that included
women, Osborne noted. “Todays NIV made an interpretative decision
that Paul was not just speaking to men there, but he was speaking to women as
well.”
Osborne said when he was an editor of the gender-neutral New
Living Translation, the word “men” was left in Acts 17:22. “We
felt Paul was speaking primarily to men,” he said. “But the editors
of the Todays NIV felt that he was speaking to a larger group, and thats
a completely valid decision.”
Bloom asked Osborne, “Doesnt that point to Dr. Mohlers
argument, though, that its precisely because one version might go one
way and another version might go the other way – and because we dont
know – that you ought to just leave it as it is?”
Osborne responded: “I think the question is, How do we best communicate
who Paul was speaking to? If Paul was speaking to a group of men and women,
it would be best to say people of Athens, because that would communicate
to the reader today that Paul was speaking to a group of more than just men.
I dont think its ideologically driven. I think its driven