"The real controversy is whether to water down or
omit details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive"


The deepest difference over gender-neutral translations is not really about whether people will be able to understand the Bible today. Rather, it is about whether translators should exclude details that seem offensive in the contemporary culture.

After all, the main words in dispute are only five: ―father,‖ ―son,‖ ―brother,‖ ―man,‖ and ―he/him/his.‖

What English-speaking person today cannot understand these words? The ultimate reason for deleting these words thousands of times is not that people cannot understand them, for they are extraordinarily simple and common words.

The ultimate reason is that the translators decided it was objectionable today to translate literally the Bible‘s uses of an individual male example to teach a general truth in thousands of passages.

For example, it is not that English readers today – even the younger generation of adults age 18 to 34 – cannot understand, ―Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked‖ (Psalm 1:1). It is that gender-neutral Bible translators find it objectionable that the Bible used an individual male example to teach a general truth, so they changed the meaning to "Blessed is the one … ". It is not that readers today cannot understand the words, ―If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him‖ (Luke 17:3). Nor would even young adults today have any difficulty in realizing that the verse also applies to a sister who sins, any more than they would have difficulty understanding that ―you shall not covet your neighbor‘s wife‖ (Exodus 20:17) also applies to not coveting your neighbor‘s husband!

For centuries people have easily understood that when the Bible uses a specific example of an individual man or woman to teach a general principle, the principle also applies to people of the opposite sex. The parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8) teaches both men and women about persistence in prayer. The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) also applies to prodigal daughters.23 We do not have to change the words of the Bible for such general applications to be understood. The Bible frequently teaches by using a concrete, specific examples, not merely by using vague principles or groups.

The 2011 NIV does not change these parables to anything gender-neutral.

So the controversy is not really about whether people today can understand that "If your brother sins, rebuke him" also applies to a sister who sins. Rather, the problem is that the 2011 NIV translators found it objectionable that Jesus used an individual example of a male human being ("If your brother sins...") to teach a general truth. Therefore the 2011 NIV changed Jesus' words to "If your brother or sister sins against you …," adding "or sister" (which are words that Jesus did not say), and in doing so they failed to translate Jesus‘ words accurately.

Moral of the story...Feel free to correct Jesus.

Full text:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/cbmw.niv2011.2.pdf