|Bible Research > English Versions > 21st Century > TNIV > Peter Jones|
The following article by Dr. Peter Jones is reproduced from the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7/2 (Fall 2002), pp. 15-20. Page numbers are indicated in square brackets.
Professor of New Testament
Chairman of the Department of Biblical Studies
Westminster Theological Seminary
Much controversy has surrounded the Today's New International Version (TNIV) since its initial appearance in 2001. Naturally, the TNIV committee has sought to reassure the Christian evangelical community that its work is worthy of Bible readers' confidence. The publisher, Zondervan, affirms categorically that the TNIV "is not a gender-neutral translation." 1 This statement is strictly true in one important sense, and laudably so. Unlike some recent, liberal translations like Oxford University Press's The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, which refer to God as Mother/Father, eliminate all male pronouns for God, and designate the eternal Son as "child," 2 the TNIV has retained all the male references to God and kept "Son" for Christ. We are in the committee's debt for holding the line on this important issue.
However, it is fair to say that the TNIV is "gender-neutral" in relation to human males and females. A working translation principle is stated in the opening pages: "Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV is ... the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns ... [Also] the so-called singular 'they/their/them' ... has been employed ... to fill the vocabulary gap ... " 3
It seems to me that this "gender-neutrality" with regard to male and female sometimes takes the TNIV in an unquestionably "egalitarian" direction. I affirm this not because there are Bible scholars on the translation team who have publicly identified themselves as egalitarian. As a matter of fact there are some complementarians on the team. I affirm this because, in eliminating generic male references, the TNIV, like the evangelical egalitarian movement in general, at this crucial point, appears to side with modern culture in its rejection of the very notion of male representation. I grant that where there is the possibility of serious misunderstanding, that is, where it looks like only males are referenced, though all are nevertheless addressed, "gender-accurate" translation can be justified. This is a judgment call. But a heavy-handed or inflexible application of "gender-accuracy" fails, I judge, to do justice to the subtle and nuanced character of much biblical language. What I do find disconcerting is the TNIV's automatic elimination of male-tagged biblical usage when the Bible seeks to communicate two complementary notions at the same time, namely, both the inclusion of all and the equally important notion of male representation through a specific male role.
A case in point would be Hebrews 12:4-9, especially verse 7, where the fatherhood of God and his discipline is compared to that of a human father. The NIV has: "For what son is not disciplined by his father?" The TNIV reads: "What children are not disciplined by their parents?" To be sure, both parents are doubtless in view, and, in preaching, that truth needs to be clarified, but there is surely more. There is the specific role of the father, symbolizing something of God's role as Father. This theological truth seems to be granted by the TNIV committee in its translation of Ephesians 6:4: "Fathers, do not exasperate your children." Here the TNIV does not use "parents" for the plural of pateres. Paul's thought seems to suggest that the particular role of father leaves fathers open to the sin of "provoking their children to wrath." That very male weakness indicates different, valid roles within the parental function. This thought is doubtless in the mind of the author to the Hebrews, who describes fatherly discipline as not always "pleasant" and sometimes "painful" (Hebrews 12:11). [p. 16]
The elimination of any significant role difference between males and females represents the essence of evangelical egalitarianism. No one in the evangelical camp would deny that the Bible is all-inclusive. However, the Bible, since its inception, in spite of male-generic language, has successfully managed to include all -- men and women, boys and girls. It is this biblical notion of inclusion through differentiation, enshrined in male-generic biblical language everywhere, that the TNIV eliminates. Though claiming that the removal is "gender accurate," there is reason to wonder whether the TNIV committee has imposed onto the inspired text, wittingly or unwittingly, an essential egalitarian principle, without debate or discussion. Future readers of this Bible will never be faced with the issue, because the Bible -- that is, this Bible -- by its omission, tells me so. In this subtle way, a theological opinion about the inappropriateness of male representation in language (or at least the theological conviction of its unimportance) is given the status of "biblical" authority.
Is male representation both in life and language such an unimportant subject that it can be sacrificed, without further discussion, to the over-riding concerns of contemporary "readability" and usage? Are male generic pronouns in the Bible merely quaint and insignificant fossils of a by-gone, male-dominated era, always unclear, always to be expunged from the biblical record for a more "gender accurate" rendition? Or are they part of the Bible's nuanced pedagogy on sexuality that our confused culture so desperately needs to hear? Can one wave goodbye to thousands of years of biblical usage without one word of explanation? With questions of human theological interpretation, ought not extreme caution be used before changing the very words of the inspired text?
Besides, in the Bible, male representation is not an infrequent or minor issue. It is in the warp and woof of Scripture from beginning to end. It is part of biblical pedagogy from Genesis to Revelation. Male headship and covenantal representation appear throughout both the Old and New Testaments as fundamental elements in the Bible's account of creation and redemption. In creation, the male Adam is "created first," and has a representative and leadership role in the original couple. That role is maintained throughout the Bible's long history, and is important enough to be reaffirmed in the New Testament in the headship of the husband in marriage and family. Male representation in the elders and fathers of Israel, in Abraham and his seed, is a constant element of the Old Testament biblical narrative, and is maintained in male leadership in the New Testament Church. In the drama of redemption, the first man, Adam, is the representative sinner, not Eve. Christ, the Last Adam, a man, is the Savior. Paul puts it this way: "Since death came through one man , the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. " 4
The TNIV renders this seminal text: "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being." 5 In regard to the biblical doctrines of creation and redemption, the TNIV adjudges insignificant the male gender of these two covenant heads, Adam and Christ. This is not just "gender-accuracy." This is a major theological decision affecting the Bible's teaching on the male role. Interestingly, the radically gender-free, gnosticizing Inclusive Version, cited above, states explicitly that there is no Christological significance in Jesus being a man, and that Jesus could just as easily have been a woman, and could have been called "daughter of God." 6 Their translation of 1 Corinthians 15:21 is word for word identical to that of the TNIV. So one must ask: Is the TNIV giving us "gender-accuracy" here or the expression, intended or not, of a certain "lite" version of egalitarian theology?
Obviously, this is not the place to develop a sustained argument on the subject of male and female in Scripture. That has been done many times elsewhere. Suffice it to say that there are major issues here that affect the home and the church, and ultimately the society, which the TNIV is solving, not by theological debate, but by translational policy. Though proclaiming the goal of "gender-accuracy," there seems to be more here than meets the eye. Complementarians are concerned that behind the claim of "gender accuracy," a particular theological agenda, doubtless inadvertently, is imported into the sacred text of Scripture, and in the process, a particular, novel interpretation is elevated to the level of biblical authority.
One must certainly acknowledge the inevitable phenomenon of language mutation, and hail the value of the committee's concern to produce a contemporary rendering of the timeless Word of God. However, at the same time, translation is not done in a theological or cultural vacuum. Especially in our day, many deliberate and strategic changes in language have arisen out of ideological attempts to reconfigure reality, in particular, sexual and gender reality. We are thus obliged to ask if something, however subtle, of that ideology is part of the present equation.
It might be useful to note what is occurring in the parallel universe of the secular academy. In a review of Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing, edited by Marilyn Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-Free Language of the Association of American University Presses, 7 the secular journalist P. J. O'Rourke notes a not-so-subtle attempt to redefine the world via the deliberate manipulation of language. Many of the examples of approved "bias-free language" found in this manual are obvious and deeply ideological expressions of the reigning, politically-correct, feministic world view of the post-Christian Western academy.
Thirteen pages of this book are devoted to finding alternatives to the generic "he." How important must be the elimination of this linguistic form in order to ensure the ideological success of the movement? Naturally, the word [p. 17] "man," meaning humanity, is to be discarded, replaced by "people" or "person." What O'Rourke calls the "use of the obnoxious singular 'they,'" is extolled as the way forward. 8
One cannot help but note that many of these very same concerns characterize the translation theories of the TNIV. Consciously or not, at this level, this fine group of Christian scholars seems to be momentarily in agreement with radical academic feminism, an ideology that has successfully convinced contemporary culture, including many evangelicals, 9 that male representation and generic male language are signs of male chauvinism and power-hungry patriarchy. Behind the dismissal of the generic "he" in these Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing lies a whole revolutionary agenda to redefine reality through intentional language alteration. This is not my idea.
The book's publisher, the Association of American University Presses, admits as much. In a position statement adopted by the AAUP Board of Directors in November 1992, it is programmatically stated: "Books that are on the cutting edge of scholarship should also be at the forefront in recognizing how language encodes prejudice. They should be agents for change (italics mine) and the redress of past mistakes." 10
Language usage is not so much changing as being purposely and calculatedly changed! What are we changing, I ask, for what reason, and on what basis? Who defines what constitutes "mistakes"? Who is doing the changing? The answers to these questions are merely assumed by assuming the correctness of today's academic agenda.
The following examples of "bias-free norms" taken from Guidelines illustrate some of these unquestioned assumptions that make up this powerful, ideologically-consistent, but often unidentified, agenda. 11
"Scholars normally refer to individuals solely by their full or their last names, omitting courtesy titles":
--ideological translation: in this world, one's marital status is no longer socially useful, because marriage itself has been seriously marginalized;
"Writers must resort to gender-neutral alternatives where the common gender form has become strongly marked as masculine":
--ideological translation: the feminist promotion of gender sameness must not be slowed down by terms like "mailman" and "fireman";
"Sensitive writers seek to avoid terms and statements implying or assuming that heterosexuality is the norm for sexual attraction":
--ideological translation: traditional moral norms for sexuality have been rejected;
"The term normal may legitimately refer to a statistical norm for human ability ("Normal vision is 20/20") but should usually be avoided in other contexts as ... invidious":
--ideological translation: even the idea of normal in general should be banished from language;
"Gratuitous characterizations of individuals, such as well-dressed, intelligent, articulate, and qualified ... may be unacceptably patronizing in some contexts":
--ideological translation: all standards and norms in modern society must be eliminated.
We must not miss the deeply "spiritual" side of this socio-linguistic agenda, because all human thinking is ultimately religious and nothing is finally "bias-free." This is especially so in the present-day academy, where advocacy and spirituality have replaced debate and the search for objectivity. 12 Here there is thunderous bias -- against the Creator and his handiwork. The intellectually brilliant Isis priestess, Caitlin Matthews, rolls back the academic/linguistic curtain to reveal the profoundly religious character of the movement. She predicts an imminent religious revival, what she calls the "Second Coming of the Goddess," 13 and states:
We are working towards better integration of the sexes and that cannot come about until the spiritual values are given justice [italics mine]. Sophia's androgeneity and her extensive repetoire of metaphors exemplifies her availability to both men and women; for she symbolically reconciles the left and the right halves of the brain -- the intellectual and the intuitive sides which have been seen as masculine and feminine. 14
This is the bottom-line agenda of "bias-free" ideology, here expressed in theological categories. In other words, the elimination of gender distinctions is not innocent but profoundly intentional. At its deepest level, the elimination of gender distinctions has nothing to do with democracy and "rights" but the facilitation of the expression of the "spiritual values" associated with pagan religion. Socio-sexual leveling and liberation into endless permutations of sexual and mental androgyny will not truly take place, according to this insightful Wiccan priestess, until pagan spirituality is generally believed and practiced. In other words, gender confusion and occult spirituality go hand in hand. 15 In such a world, biblical sexual distinctions and gender role differences are anathema.
It does appear that what is happening today in the politically-correct hot-house atmosphere of academic post-modern [p. 18] advocacy feminism, which in so many cases covers itself in empowering pagan spirituality, has little or nothing to do with the kind of inevitable linguistic changes that occur over long periods of time in all languages. The TNIV translation committee rightly observes that "while a basic core of the English language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural forces continue (italics mine) to bring about subtle shifts in meanings ..." 16 I stressed the word "continue" for it suggests the natural, normal mutation of all languages through long periods of history. In this natural process, a word like "prevent" (Latin -- prevenire) which once meant "go before," as in "prevenient grace," over the centuries now comes to mean "stop" or "disallow."
There is nothing "natural" about today's language battles. They have to do with periods of rapid revolutionary change and determined ideological social engineering, periods like that of the French Revolution. Soon after 1789, the radicals renamed the months of the year (from January, February, etc., to Fructidor, Germidor, Floreal, Thermidor, Prairial, Pluviose, etc.), began re-dating chronological history so that AD 1792 became Year I, declared a ten day week, and erected an altar to the Goddess Reason in Notre Dame cathedral. Understanding the power of language, the revolutionaries developed a "rhetoric of Liberty." 17 According to a historian of the period, it was this revolutionary rhetoric that "created 'The People,' (that is, the Revolution), not vice versa." 18 In other words, the much vaunted vox populi was actually the elitist voice of a few wild-eyed activists and academic theorists. The people were "sheeple." The Revolution was the work of the Revolutionaries. So sudden and radical were the changes that a few years later many of these revolutionary innovations had simply disappeared. Napoleon and the people had the last word.
There are fascinating parallels with our own time. After the Cultural Revolution of the Sixties, which was essentially a campus phenomenon, we have witnessed a determined effort by a cultural elite -- "tenured radicals" and their disciples -- in key places of power and influence to redefine morals, sexuality and spirituality for everyone. The Goddess is poised to take control. Says apostate Presbyterian theologian, Lloyd Geering, expressing the spiritual revolution in gender terms: "The loving care of Mother Earth is in many quarters replacing the former sense of obedience to the Heavenly Father." 19 "The time for glorifying the Almighty (male) God who supposedly rules is now over (my emphasis)." 20 In this world, everything male, and especially male representation, must be eliminated. Everything reminding us of that period must go. Geering, who is promoted by the Jesus Seminar, actually predicts that, in the future, society will rename the year AD 2000 as 1 GE, the first year of the global era. 21
I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that we are witnessing a social revolution that is determined to erase from the cultural memory of the "Christian" West both the normativity of heterosexual gender and role distinctions and the patriarchal God of the Bible. Essential to this revolution is the control and manipulation of language. Interestingly, this revolution, which began with the sexual revolution and the rejection of male/female distinctions ends with the rejection of the male God of the Bible, for this Arch-Patriarch, Jahweh, stands in the way of final liberation. Naomi Goldenberg, a Jewish feminist who became a witch, already stated the agenda in 1979: "We women are going to bring an end to God." 22 She means, of course, the (male) God of the Bible.
We evangelicals are not translating the Bible in a cultural vacuum or in any old, "normal" time frame. We do it in the white heat of ideological and spiritual warfare. Thus, while it is absolutely paramount to let the word of God say everything it wants to say, including gender inclusive language, if that is what the Bible has to say, it would be a pity -- no, a disaster -- to translate the Bible according to the very contemporary revolutionary "norms" that have as their goal the ultimate silencing of the Bible.
It seems to me that the TNIV's translation theory -- " ... many diverse and complex cultural forces continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases" 23 -- fails to account for the complexity and conflictual character of the present revolutionary situation, and seems naively unaware of where such a theory could take evangelical Bible translation in days to come. One member of the translation committee explicitly says that the TNIV has in mind "especially younger girls." 24 It is these readers, often brain-washed by secular egalitarian feminism, who need to hear the Bible's counter-cultural message concerning divinely created sexual differentiation.
With this principle of sensitivity to present cultural forces and language changes, such a theory sometimes seems more like capitulation than translation. In the evangelical publishing world generally, publishers are bending over backwards to fit in with the new ideology. One of the editors from Zondervan, Bob Hudson, and his wife, Shelley Townsend, who noticeably does not take her husband's name, published The Christian Writers' Manual of Style in 1988. In this guide for Christian writers, male representation in language is dismissed as "sexism." Writers "should avoid ... language that expresses an inherent predominance of one sex over the other." 25 Male representation is dismissed with the negative term "predominance." It is rejected as language containing "subtle sexist messages." 26 This outright rejection of patriarchal language, so common to the Bible, collides with Hudson's and Townsend's call for care in language. They argue that, for Christian writers, "words have special significance ... , (and, specifically) the words of Scripture (which) have shaped our civilization." 27 But on this crucial subject, these words of Scripture are no longer allowed to shape the culture, but made to fit with feministic liberation [p. 19] ideology and the rejection of gender roles. Another evangelical publisher, Brazos, an imprint of Baker Books, makes this ideology explicit. "Editorially, we affirm women alongside men in church and leadership positions." 28
This general "egalitarian" approach to generic male language sets itself up for serious compromise in the future. The TNIV committee rightly congratulates itself for "retain(ing) male terminology for all references to God -- without exception." 29 Will the next generation of translators be able to hold this line, since the present committee's justification for changing male generic pronouns for human relationships is already the same one used by the Inclusive Version to remove all male gender references to God? Here is how the editors of this extremist, "cutting-edge" rendition of Scripture justify their work:
The English language has changed in recent years in many ways ... in the direction of greater specificity with regard to gender ... The editors were committed to accelerating changes in English language towards inclusiveness in a holistic sense. The result is another step in the continuing process of rendering Scripture in language that reflects our best understanding of the nature of God, of humanity and divinity of Jesus, and of the wholeness of human beings. 30
This statement recognizes not only changes in language, but the need to help change language in the direction of a specific ideology. Such a principle causes this translation team, as noted above, to suppress all male gender references to God, and substitute "child of God" for "Son of God. 31 This Inclusive Version claims to be "language-improved to more precisely reflect a universal concept of God and Jesus Christ." 32 With this addition of precision we get priceless offerings like: "We cry, Abba! Father-Mother" 33 ; "Christ did not please Christ's self" 34 ; "If God has been glorified in the Human One, God will also glorify that very one in Godself and will glorify that one at once." 35 This is precision tripping over itself to avoid committing the unpardonable sin of male references, but ends up in politically-correct gibberish. Such "translation" is worthy of the judgment of Jesus: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" 36
On the market since 1995, the Inclusive Version has already responded to the "complex cultural forces" which oppose generic male references by eliminating all gender- specific references to God and turning "the Man, Christ Jesus" 37 into a genderless child. But this kind of sensitivity to the culture is not only found in mainline liberal circles. Even now, I have been told, some evangelical egalitarian colleges discourage the use on campus of the term "Father" for God, for fear of offending certain women. This is maintained in spite of the fact that the term "Father" represents the very high-point of New Testament revelation, and the very depth of Christian spirituality. Our savior Jesus himself exemplified this. 36 At the crucial moment in the history of redemption, when everything was on the line, Jesus uttered this prayer of deep filial devotion: "Abba, Father ... everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." 39 Paul articulates this truth in two of his letters. To the Christians at Rome he says: "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'" 40 The true function of the Spirit, achieved by the work of Christ, brings people into a deep and intimate relationship with God. In similar fashion, to the Gentile converts in the Galatian church, Paul says: "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father. '" 41 This is not just a New Testament idea. To know God intimately as Father is the great goal of God's saving project in the Old Testament: 42 "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." Paul sees this goal already realized in the church in pagan Corinth. 43
In spite of these essential Gospel truths, the "cultural forces" are stronger, and Scriptural terminology and theology must be modified to fit the social, gender-inclusive agenda, even for those who still claim the name Evangel. If generic male language does not mean what it textually says -- "all represented through the male" -- then why hold on to male language for God, since God is not "male"? If generic male language offends or excludes women, as many Christian publishers, in justification of their inclusive language policies now claim, surely male language for God is equally offensive for the same reason. Can we not already anticipate the argument from some future "evangelical" translation team: "Nowadays, many people no longer conceive of God in masculine terms, and so, having regard to the complex cultural forces which continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases, we have eliminated all generic masculine references to the Deity."
I do not believe this eventuality is too far down the road of Bible translation, and so I would plead with my brothers and sisters on the TNIV team to reconsider their methodology, especially where the double notions of male representation and inclusiveness are integrally combined, for the following reason: The masculine references to God, which the TNIV courageously maintains, do not stand alone. They are part of a complex web of interrelated notions, where the truths about God find some reflection in the creation he makes. For Paul, the relationship between God as Father and the male role as father in the family are deeply related. 44 God is not a single parent. He is Father. When the earthly role of father has been eliminated, or, less radically, merged into a general parental function, how can [p. 20] people conceive of a heavenly Father, 45 and how does one resist the pressure to alter male biblical language about God to "reflect a universal concept of God and Jesus Christ," 46 to produce divine titles like Mother/Father or heavenly Parent?
With the exception of a few metaphors ("like a hen," "like a mother"), the God of Scripture exclusively and consistently reveals himself via the masculine gender, as the TNIV recognizes. This is surely not the result of a sinful, patriarchal society imposing male terminology on the Deity, but the Creator's determined intention to employ the necessary and delicate balance of the male/female distinctions he created, which are also consistently revealed in Scripture, in order to recall his own role as transcendent and differentiated Creator. God as "male" and human male representation are like two supporting pillars in the construction of the biblical narrative. The TNIV is holding on to one, but self-consciously letting go the other. But, as the cultural/neo-pagan spiritual revolution all around us is demonstrating with utmost clarity, determined vigor and ominous success, when you remove one the other, sooner or later, will also fall.
Once human sexual relationships are no longer taken to represent meaningful role distinctions, nor seen as symbols of a higher, divine reality, then the disintegration of the Christian faith and the biblical world view is not far away. The nature and well-being of created humanity and the story of Gospel redemption are stake, for the way is opened for the biblical revelation of the person of God to be deconstructed along the lines we now already see in inclusivist translations of Scripture. God becomes an amorphous and impersonal He/She/It, the Spirit in and around all things, and Christianity moves closer to taking its place, as Lloyd Geering eerily and joyfully predicts it, as "a facet of a new global (pagan) religion." 47
1. A public e-mail from Zondervan, February 06, 2002.
2. See The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) xi-xiii.
3. "Word to the Reader," Today's New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) vii.
4. 1 Corinthians 15:21.
5. TNIV, 1 Corinthians 15:21.
6. Inclusive Version, xiii.
7. P. J. O'Rourke, "A Review of Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing, by Marilyn Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-Free Language of the Association of American University Presses," The American Spectator (August, 1995).
8. Ibid., as it is by the TNIV Bible committee. According to the Zondervan e-mail, cited above, "The TNIV sometimes uses a generic plural pronoun in the place of a masculine singular pronoun, making it more consistent with contemporary English practice."
9. See below the statements of evangelical writers, Bob Hudson and Shelley Townsend in their book, The Christian Writer's Manual of Style.
11. For quotations see O'Rourke "Review of Guidlines."
12. I am not suggesting that every one in the academy signs on to the religious commitments, but that the various levels of the agenda can and do feed one another, so that those who do no want to go the whole way are incapable of stopping the rushing tide.
13. Caitlin Matthews, Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom: The Divine Feminine from Black Goddess to World-Soul (London: The Aquarian Press, 1992) 332.
14. Ibid., 333.
15. I tried to show this in, Peter Jones, "Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal," JETS 43/3 (September, 2000) 443-469. On the pagan side, this is similarly affirmed.
16. TNIV, vii.
17. Simon Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of The French Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1989) 166 and 168.
19. Lloyd Geering, The World to Come: From Christian Past to Global Future (Polebridge Press, 1999) 158.
20. Ibid., 129.
21. Ibid., 107.
22. Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1979) 3-4.
23. "Word to the Reader," Today's New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) vii.
24. Donald H. Madvig, "A Response to the Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible," Perspectives on Gender Accuracy and the TNIV (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 5.
25. Bob Hudson and Shelley Townsend, eds., The Christian Writers' Manual of Style (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) 86.
27. Ibid., 9.
28. Cited in Sam Torode, "The Abolition of Man," World (July/August, 2002) 44.
29. A public e-mail from Zondervan, February 06, 2002.
30. Inclusive Version, ix.
31. Ibid., xi and xiii.
32. This statement appeared in the Oxford University Press catalogue, announcing the translation's appearance.
33. Romans 8:15.
34. Romans 15:3.
35. John 13:32.
36. Mark 7:9.
37. 1 Timothy 2:5.
38. John 14:6-14; 16:15; 17:1; 11:25-26.
39. Mark 14:36.
40. Romans 8:15.
41. Galatians 4:6.
42. 2 Samuel 7:14. cf., 7:8.
43. 2 Corinthians 6:18, which cites the above Old Testament texts.
44. Ephesians 3:14.
45. The radical theologian, Lloyd Geering, The World to Come, 124, even as he argues for the elimination of the biblical God, recognizes this biblical connection. He states: "When the divine male gender reigns supreme in the heavenly places as the Almighty, so the human male gender dominates the earth."
46. This statement appeared in the Oxford University Press catalogue, announcing the translation's appearance.
47. The World to Come, 154.
|Bible Research > English Versions > 21st Century > TNIV > Peter Jones|