Talk:New International Version
|WikiProject Bible||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class)|
Regarding this passage from the article:
- Among the differences in the TNIV is that it will use more gender-neutral language, referring in some places, for example, to "children of God" instead of "sons of God" and changing phrases such as "a man is justified by faith" to "a person is justified by faith." Male references to God, however, will not be modified.
Would it be fair to say that this is the same or similar approach taken to gender-neutral language that was used in gong from the Revised Standard Version to the New Revised Standard Version? Sounds the same to me, but I want to verify before changing the text. Thanks, Wesley
According to IBS:
2. Trademarks. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society in the United States and other countries. IBS, the IBS Logo, and IBSDIRECT.COM and the IBSDIRECT.COM Logo are trademarks and service marks of IBS. All other trademarks, service marks, and logos used in this Web Site are the trademarks, service marks, or logos of their respective owners. Other trademarks of IBS may be added from time to time on this site. In order to preclude confusion among our visitors, the trademarks and service marks of IBS may not be used in any manner in connection with any product or service that is not a product or service of IBS, without the prior written consent of IBS. By using this Web Site, you acknowledge the validity and enforceability of the IBS trademarks and agree that you will not in any way infringe, either directly or indirectly, the IBS trademarks.
- Not sure why the above was posted as it doesn't have anything to do with our use of the IBS and NIV names. In any case, I've removed the registered trademark symbols from the article, since we're under no obligation to mark third-party trademarks. Psychonaut 15:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- 1 Line removed
- 2 "Non-Protestants" WERE involved
- 3 Copyrighted?
- 4 New category
- 5 "Textual Basis" and "Translation Type"
- 6 Recent Vandalism
- 7 Update and Overhaul
- 8 Isaiah 7:14
- 9 Barker
- 10 Question moved from main
- 11 Homosexuality
- 12 Criticism section
- 13 2011 vs 2010
- 14 Revised Standard Version
- 15 Controversy over 2011 revision
- 16 Protecting the NIV?
- 17 Quotes exemplifying non-literal translation
- 18 POV - 2011 Revision Editing
- 19 POV - gender-neutral Bible
- 20 Significant Southern Baptist Convention member editing?
- 21 Recent edits
- 22 POV tag
- 23 Infobox image
I removed this line:
The translators used liberal textual criticism in translating this version. The New Testament is based mainly on Westcott and Hort's Greek text.
According to the NIV preface, the NIV used an eclectic Gk text - NOT W-H! iHoshie 13:05, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
"Non-Protestants" WERE involved
I am Lutheran (Missouri Synod) and most Lutherans tend to see ourselves as distinct from "Protestantism" since Luther predated that term. There were Lutherans involved in translation of the NIV. There were also Anglican/Episcopalian translators, and they often see themselves as closer to Roman Catholicism than Protestantism. I assume that by "Protestant" the article is referring to Christians in general who are not part of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions. Currently we use the NIV in our liturgy and as the basis for our Concordia Self-Study Bible, though we are adopting the English Standard Version once our new hymnal is released in 2006.--MarshallStack 17:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The Prefix for the NIV itself says they drew across all main line christian denominations, including Catholic to prevent denomination-bias. Joncnunn 19:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
No, Roman Catholics were not involved in the NIV translation process (nor were Eastern Orthodox, incidentally). However, Anglicans were, and hence it surprises me that the NIV does not include the Apocrypha, as Anglicans use it (as do some Lutherans).--MarshallStack 04:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
A few years ago someone explained the reasoning behind the copyrighting of the NIV translation of the Bible, but I can no longer recall what it was. Does anyone have the reasoning for reserving the copyrights? --188.8.131.52 20:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably so someone couldn't republish the entire NIV bible under their own name & copyright. Joncnunn 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The category has been put up several times by authors, pastors, etc., however, someone from Zondervan keeps deleting them. Check the edit history and you'll see, they've made hundreds of deletions of any criticism beyond the ploy criticism they posted to make this biased document not seem too staged. This comment will probably be deleted as well. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to see a new category added for criticisms (and responses to criticisms) regarding the NIV translation. Any takers? I'd give it a go myself but I'm a) happy with my NIV translation and b) not well-versed on the basis of criticisms. --JesusFreak Jn3:16 01:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You'll get people who criticise any translation (especially King James Only people), and no translation is going to keep everyone happy. In my church (Lutheran Missouri Synod), most of our liturgy is still based around the NIV, though we're adopting the ESV as our semi-official translation...however, I imagine a lot of people are still going to be using the NIV. My pastor prefers the NASB.--MarshallStack 04:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Textual Basis" and "Translation Type"
Those numbers are unsourced and unexplained. Where do they come from and what do they mean? Peter Ballard 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the recent vandals inserted this link http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/13795-niv.html in the NIV entry he vandalized. I traced the IP to New York. In the post on the message board from Chad, Administrator of the website "Talk Jesus", who posted a long diatribe against the New International Version of the Bible, is in New York according to the location listed for him. Coincidence? I have no idea why adherents to the King James Version of the Bible continue to act this way. Knight1000 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Update and Overhaul
getting the broom and vacuum cleaner out
- Removed King James Bible propaganda
- Removed information and subject matter that seemed more like gossip belonging in a National Inquirer, some was pretty inflammatory and didn't have any references
- Removed information from infidels.org; quoting anything from infidels.org and expecting it to be unbaised is silly
- Removed information that the New International Version is tied with a conspiratorial homosexual agenda, this is beyond silly for anyone to even entertain this as substantive
- Discrepancy’s and problems with the codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, should go in those respective areas or another area. The NIV entry is not really a good place to air personal grips about codexs
- King James Onlyism debate information needs to go in its respective area, especially when the topics discussed have nothing to do with the NIV
- Added new information w/references
- Clean up the wording, article short and to the point, w00t!
- I appreciate your effort, and I'm glad a lot of that ridiculous KJV-only stuff is gone (if for no other reason than it belongs in an article on the KJV-only debate). But something about "evangelical bias" needs to go back in. I always thought that was a relatively widespread criticism of the NIV, and I've even noticed it myself FWIW. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some reference to the fact that the NIV was created partly in response to the "young woman" translation controversy in the NRSV/RSV?--Sailor Titan (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps true of the New American Standard Bible; but since the NASB was already in existence I doubt that was true of the NIV. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is Dan Barker the source for translation criticism? By his own admission he only has two years of undergraduate Greek to his name. Similarly, his criticism is simply in error.--Ari89 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Question moved from main
You refer to different manuscripts that are [perhaps more accurate under the section entitled criticisms. what are the names of these "superior" manuscripts" -- 220.127.116.11
A verse in Corinthians uses the word homosexuality although this term did not exist in any language until 1869. Can someone put this in the criticisms page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Source? Basileias (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are referring to I Corinthians 6:9, which was translated "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." in the NIV until at least 1997. It's true that "homosexual" is not an exact translation of "αρσενοκοιτης". But they have changed it to "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men". This is perhaps a better translation of "αρσενοκοιται" (although one could argue that it misuses the word "sex"), but they have neglected to translate the previous term, "μαλακοι". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia, as of this edit, is publicizing their proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing, how it's causing problems in wikipedia and will incur criminal charges if continues.
It's well known that one of the MOST unreliable wiki documents is on the NIV as it's plainly obvious that Zondervan has hired someone to remove anything against the NIV. A large counsel may soon target this document which would be very bad for Zondervan. I personally warn whoever is cherry picking this document to be fair and unbiased before every criticism with the NIV is made known in this search engine without there being a time available that someone isn't monitoring the document to purge it of your biased tactics.
Instead of just deleting this comment, you may want to forward it to your employers as a caring heads up. Just be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The Criticism section tag was removed because there was "no discussion on talk page", which isn't correct. Looking at the sources many, and throughout the article, fail Wikipedia's WP:RS. The article as a whole needs clean up. Basileias (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Started some cleanup. A lot of references and links are broken or have changed. Basileias (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- User StreamOfJustice creates an account @ 03:31 and then performs an odd edit @ 03:38. Basileias (talk)
- The criticism section uses these sources for it's criticisms.
- I fail to see how most of these support the various criticisms cited. I would like to remove most of them and rename the the "criticism" section to "reception." The is the norm is most article when dealing with how something was received; like movies, books, etc. Basileias (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
2011 vs 2010
Revised Standard Version
An edit by user BlueMesa171 stating "the Revised Standard Version "a much better literary achievement and more worthy of acceptance as the standard media Bible," doesn't make any sense to add. The reason is the article is about the New International Version, not the Revised Standard Version, it also sounds opinionated. While I don't have issues with that statement in Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate in the Revised Standard Version article. Basileias (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Controversy over 2011 revision
A new section was recently added. The 3 sources provided are not neutral third party sources, especially cbmw.org. Some of the write up, "Most conservatives prefer a word for word translation..." isn't a sourced fact. Also the statement, "The Southern Baptist Convention...the largest evangelical denomination in the world..." seems like an advertisement for them. Trying to run through a few one sided sources to create a "2011 controversy" when it appears many "conservative groups," if you want to call them that, are largely fine with the recent NIV.
The SBC source stated this...
In an unusual move, messengers called to the floor and passed a resolution on the "gender-neutral 2011 New International Version" (NIV) that was not reported to the convention by the Resolutions Committee.
I don't know what "unusual move" is supposed to mean and the statement "was not reported to the convention by the Resolutions Committee" seems like we should wait for more information. Basileias (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
"Unusual move" means that the resolution was brought to the convention from the floor rather than reported out of the resolutions committee, as is normally done. The last time this happened was 2002. The resolution passed almost unanimously. One should not consider this resolution any less authoritative than others. user:toverton28
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6491/53/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptists-reject-updated-niv-bible-51288/ http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=1374070 http://www.realclearreligion.org/2011/06/17/southern_baptists_air_displeasure_with_the_new_niv_241989.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This seems mainly centered around what the SBC has done as most of these sources appear "Baptist," and I suspect Southern Baptist. I know the WELS Lutheran group has publicly said differently. The outstanding question would be, is it notable what the SBC has done on this. The original edit was written like a POV push with statements "controversy," "...the concept of gender-neutrality...," "Most conservatives prefer a word for word translation..." etc. Any future edits concerning this topic need to be written from a Neutral point of view.
- It appears the SBC has called the NIV "Gender-Neutral." This is rather odd because I think of "gender-neutral" as "not associated with gender." Searching the new version of the NIV for the word "man" on bible gateway produced a result of 1,989 hits. I am concerned about the sources per WP:RS. Basileias (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
After Toverton28's reinsert
- Toverton28, when someone removes and edit and takes the issue to the talk page you are supposed to reach a consensus here first before you go reinserting the original edit. Your edition is not encyclopedic and I am raising a question about even the notability of it. Basileias (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I attempted to address your concerns in the changes there were made. This was not a simple reinsert but a new post attempting to address your concerns. Focus on the Family is not a Baptist organization, yet it is also critical of the gender neutral changes. "Most" was changed to "Some". I even linked a British article to show that this issue is notable. The Washington Times is also linked. Realclearreligion.org ran a story on the Southern Baptist resolution. Gender-neutral does not mean all reference to gender are eliminated, but that many male references in the original language are. . . such as "I will make you fish for people" instead of "I will make you fishers of men". The original Greek says "men". See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367570/New-Bible-translation-causes-controversy-addition-women-gender-neutral-language.html Please let me know if you have additional concerns. Thank you.
Here is the updated post that I would like to see placed on the NIV page. I believe many wiki readers would like to know this information.
Controversy over 2011 revision
In 2011 Zondervan changed the translation philosophy of the NIV to incorporate the concept of gender-neutrality.
When the original language says "brothers", the 2011 NIV often translates the English into "brothers and sisters". Some conservative scholars, who believe every single word of the Bible is inspired by God, have been critical of these changes.
Many conservatives prefer a word for word translation of the original language rather than a thought for thought translation, which inserts more of the translators personal theology into the English text. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published articles critical of the gender-neutral changes.
The Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest evangelical denomination in the United States
passed a resolution calling the 2011 NIV an "inaccurate translation".
Cite error: A
<ref> tag is missing the closing
</ref> (see the help page). The NIV has changed this passage somewhat since he wrote that, but what he says is still true. (In verse 21 it now says "the righteousness of God" instead of "a righteousness from God", in verse 22 they have dropped "from God" and added "between Jew and Gentile" which isn't in the Greek, in verse 25 they have replaced "through faith in his blood" by "through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith", and in verses 25 and 26 they have changed "justice" to "righteousness".) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it is obscured in various translations, your own information you supplied, then is it even an issue with this particular translation? Make sure it does not feel like Cherrypicking to other readers. I am not against installing information from Wright, but to go detailed passage by passage is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Ever major book has a critique. It should not squeeze out most of the main information and become the sole focal point. That is what in the past often happens here. Basileias (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Protecting the NIV?
I recently had a reason to access this page and was stunned to find that such a major version of the Bible had such a weak Wikipedia entry. After spending a few hours doing research on what I expected to find on this page I decided to update it. Rather than remove questionable and weak material (which tends to offend others), my update was largely to clean up the entry by creating more logical sections, moving existing material to those sections for clearer reading, adding references to other NIV versions and revisions currently not even listed (!), adding history for all versions and adding some verifiable statistics which were all fully referenced. All the while carefully trying to avoid the many controversies found in this and just about any other version of the Bible.
In one full swoop all my hours of work were undone with the simple comment, "(Sources in question. Not independant or 3rd party and edits also covering topics written on in other articles.)"
OK. My citations were not the best as I left off the authors and access dates. That could easily have been fixed. But the sources themselves? I would like the person responsible for the undo to please explain how citations of outside sources of original work, documents and articles are not independent or 3rd party. As far as covering these topics in other articles, this is the MAIN article. Other versions of the NIV should at least referenced here, especially since the articles on Wikipedia for those other versions are also very short and weak.
After reading the history and talk sections for this entry and the many attempted edits to this page it is obvious that people are, for some strange reason, trying to keep any relevant information on the various versions of the NIV out of Wikipedia. Too bad. (And I am an avid reader of this version of the Bible!) Wikipedia readers deserve to at least know the facts. Whomever is regularly undoing edits on this page is doing everyone a great disservice. I call on the Wikipedia community at large to judge for themselves, invite anyone to review my changes and click undo on the undo! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- If I had caught these edits, I would have wanted revert them too. Here is why WP:THIRDPARTY,
Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material.
- So yes, people do protect this article and hopefully all articles. Some of the sources like bpnews or worldmag have neutrality issues. Other sources were personal websites and that can also be a no-go, especially when its criticism.
- You did do an almost article changing edit and those often can result in a revert by someone. All that said, I do not think everything you did should be tossed. I thought some of your edit did clean and create logical sections and clearer reading. If you want to propose some changes here, you might find editors are very willing to work with you. Basileias (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Quotes exemplifying non-literal translation
Basileias, why did you take out my examples of non-literal translation? We don't need a citation to prove that that's what the NIV has done! When Wikipedia installed its policy that things need to be supported by citations, they did not mean that no one can write anything intelligent without proving that some other "reliable source" said it! Recently I added in the article on the Gospel of Peter that it disagrees with the Epistle of Peter on a certain point, and someone reverted it saying I need a source! I get the impression that certain people use the rules against "original research" and in favor of "neutral point of view" to enforce their own point of view. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
POV - 2011 Revision Editing
Basileias, I am a bit confused about your recent editing of my work. You seem more interested in hiding documentation and driving an agenda rather than helping wiki readers learn about various subjects. For example, this is a quote from the NIV page.
However, the Southern Baptist Convention rejected the 2011 update because of gender-related issues.
This sentence has no sourcing. I bring in a source and you remove it. The source is the resolution that Southern Baptists passed against the 2011 NIV. Why would you not want this linked? It is obviously a good source for the sentence. Here is the link:
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1218/on-the-genderneutral-2011-new-international-version . Please do not remove this source until you have worked with others on the NIV Bible discussion page. Your refusal to allow such common sense sources shows that you have an agenda beside informing wiki readers. Linking the gender-neutral Bible page under 2011 Revision section is also helpful to wiki readers. This link takes readers to a side by side comparison of the 1984 NIV vs the 2011 NIV revision by Zondervan. Please leave this link alone as well until others give their perspective.
- Cbmw.org and sbc.net are advocacy organizations. They are not third party neutral news sites. Also what you entered regarding language is already covered. You are promoting those sites. I think for now this article should be tag POV until this is resolved. WP:RSUW what you are entering is lacking reliable sources and could create an undue weight. Also, another article which I think, you once supplied (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-19-newbible_N.htm), says "the New Bible drops gender-neutral language of '05 version." Basileias (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
POV - gender-neutral Bible
User Toverton28 (talk) appeared very focused on the New International Version. Cbmw.org is interested in promoting its own translation. Which makes this advocacy group further removed from sourcing. Many modern translations have already gone down a modern English road. To name a few.
- New Revised Standard Version
- New Living Translation
- Updated New American Standard Version (incorporates some modern language)
- The Message
- Common English Bible
Significant Southern Baptist Convention member editing?
My message below originally appeared here. The user recently linked the articles and sources the Southern Baptist Convention, which he might be a significant member of and close to this subject matter due to potentially being part of submitting a resolution to the SBC over this subject matter in 2014
When a significant contributor to an article appears to have a close connection with its subject, generally it’s supposed to be identified because it can be considered a conflict of interest (WP:COI).
Are you a member of the Southern Baptist Convention? That would be the same organization you using as a significant source. And submitted resolution over this subject matter to the SBC in 2014?
That would be a pretty close connection. An article identifies a Mr. Overton (Toverton28?) (http://www.bpnews.net/40502/mental-health-motion-has-pastors-passion) in connection with the SBC resolution using information supplied from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Information you source from both groups to add to this article.
A Mr. Overton is mentioned in the comments of this blog article. (http://www.dennyburk.com/the-sbc-resolution-on-the-niv) I believe on your talk page you have been cautioned already about using sources so close to the subject matter. Like ironically an article from Baptist Press news, Southern Baptist Convention.
Are you this Mr. Overton? Even if you are, it does not mean you cannot contribute to these articles or Wikipedia, but its frowned on to used Wikipedia as a promotion vehicle for the Southern Baptist Convention and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
- The edit Toverton added I feel, and in my opinion, is mostly alright. I do see the concern with the sources. As previously pointed out on the talk page WP:3PARTY Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material.
- My source concerns,
- Independent of the subject being covered
- Appear affiliated with the event, have pointed purpose in criticism of this bible (they could be good sources to state what some conservatives think though if that can be established)
- Looks like Toverton is using sources that have a significant bias
- Odd, once source called this bible gender neutral, but another denies it.
- 2009 source (gender neutral)
- 2011 source (NOT gender neutral)
- I think we should respect the request to let other editors give their thoughts. Just my 2 cents, and I don’t feel qualified to be a 3O!! Bigbird6 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I still do not have a response about Overton's potential WP:COI. The statement "...some conservatives have labeled the 2011 NIV a gender-neutral Bible...", at this time is not going to work for me. I believe this is what the some in the SBC have said. I am not sure that is large enough for "some conservatives." btw...good catch the washingtontimes and usatoday story differences. Basileias (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- In support of the phrase "some conservatives have labeled the 2011 NIV a gender-neutral Bible", I refer you to the Colorado Spring Guidelines adopted by multiple conservatives in 1997. The 2011 NIV violates these standards. Those who endorsed these standards are Ken Barker, Timothy Bayly, Joel Belz, James Dobson, Wayne Grudem, Charles Jarvis, John Piper, Vern S. Poythress, R. C. Sproul, Ron Youngblood, Gleason Archer, Hudson Armerding, Clinton E. Arnold, S. M. Baugh, Alistair Begg, James Montgomery Boice, James Borland, Bill Bright, Vonette Bright, Harold O. J. Brown, Bryan Chapell, Edmund Clowney, Robert Coleman, Charles Colson, Jack Cottrell, Jerry Falwell, John Frame, W. Robert Godfrey, Jack Hayford, H. Wayne House , Elliott Johnson, Peter Jones, Mary Kassian, D. James Kennedy, George W. Knight III, Andreas Kostenberger, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Gordon R. Lewis, Robert Lewis , Erwin Lutzer, Richard L. Mayhue, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., J. P. Moreland , Joel Nederhood, J. Stanley Oakes, Stephen Olford, J. I. Packer, Dorothy Patterson, Paige Patterson, Dennis Rainey, Pat Robertson, Adrian Rogers, Paul Sailhamer, Robert Saucy, Jerry Vines, John Walvoord, Bruce Ware, Stu Weber, William Weinrich, David Wells, John Wimber. http://www.bible-researcher.com/csguidelines.html Please note the multiple denominations represented and the level of scholarship present in the list. Resolutions opposing "gender-inclusive" Bible translations were also passed in the summer of 1997 by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Conservative Congregational Christian Churches. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church has also condemned gender-neutral Bibles like the 2011 NIV. http://www.christianpost.com/news/lutherans-latest-to-reject-new-niv-bible-over-gender-language-81060/ Focus on the Family refuses to recommend the 2011 NIV because of gender-neutral language. http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/26499/~/what-bible-translations-does-focus-recommend%3F
- I made a few updates and kept the sources to neutral sources. Labeling the NIV a gender neutral bible is a stretch because usatoday has an article that states it dropped gender-neutral language. Just looking at Gen 1:27 "God created mankind in his own image". I mean, that's not exactly gender neutral! See how my edits are and maybe we can get the POV tag removed Bas? Bigbird6 (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think your edits are minimizing the many conservative scholars who call the 2011 NIV gender-neutral. I simply do not understand why you would want to hide this information from wiki readers. These theologians are not insignificant, and their scholarship should be represented and explained in a balanced way. The 2011 NIV did not remove all gender-neutral language, so saying that it did is inaccurate. Let me know your thoughts on the changes I made. Toverton28 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Overton, the 1997 revision is a different version and worldmag.com is not known as a neutral source in these matters. This article is not advocacy for views from Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Southern Baptist Convention. There is also an article in usatoday that conflicts with less neutral sources, the ones your are providing. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-19-newbible_N.htm) Pleaes handle this issue here. The disagreements over gender language are covered in the article and what you are adding is undue weight. Basileias (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Washingtonpost.com is a valid source. However how did you take this from the article? "While much of the conservative Christian criticism of the TNIV was incorporated into the 2011 revision," It appears to conflict with the USATODAY article.
I think the statement, "TheCouncil on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood still argues that gender-neutral language remains." is valid and it has a good source.
On July 29, 2016 Aurelius139 altered the image used in the infobox, adding the latest image of the New International Version. The edit summary was, "Updating photo to reflect the current / modern NIV Bible cover, which was revised in 2011. Previous photo was an outdated version of the NIV". I accept that the change was made in good faith, however, it was a mistake. Images of older editions of a book are preferred in an infobox, with first editions being best of all. The current image should be replaced with a first edition if possible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)