In 1995, the NIV team (International Bible Society (IBS) and Committee on Bible Translations (CBT)) created a feminist "gender-inclusive" NIV, titled the New International Version Inclusive language edition [NIVI]. They found out very quickly and very loudly that America was not "prime-time ready" for a NIV feminist "gender inclusive" edition. So the NIVI was published solely in Great Britain by Hodder & Stoughton (Zondervan is the exclusive NIV publisher in the U.S.). The NIVI is so drenched in feminist changes and so corrupt, it cannot legally be sold in America. The NIVI is a "bound and gagged book" in America. See 2 Timothy 2:9, ( ‘. . .but the word of God is not bound"). According to Christianity Today, NIV copyright holder, International Bible Society (IBS) even requested that Hodder & Stoughton quit selling the embarrassing NIVI in liberal England.

A little known "secret" that also appeared in 1996 was concerning Zondervan’s, the New International Readers Version [NIrV]. According to Zondervan, the NIrV was, "a thorough, scholarly simplification of the NIV, the NIrV was specifically designed to help young children [ages 2-10] and new readers understand the Bible for themselves." The NIrV sold under such "innocent" titles as: The NIrV Children’s Bible: The Beginner’s Bible; NIrV Kid’s Study Bible; NIrV Kids’ Quest Study Bible; Adventure Bible for Young Readers; NIrV Read to Me Bible for Kids.

But the "dirty little secret" was the children’s NIrV was soaking in "gender inclusive" feminist language. There was nothing in the Preface, nor any hint anywhere that the innocent children’s NIrV was flooded with "gender inclusive" lingo.

Get this "nugget" – Bruce Metzger, writes in The Bible in Translation: "In November 1996, Hodder and Stoughton issued in Great Britain the simplified NIV [the Children’s NIrV] under the title: New International Version Popular Edition, Inclusive Language and in March 1997 under the title New International Version: Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI)" (Bruce Metzger, The Bible in Translation, p. 172). According to Metzer, the "banned in the U.S." feminist NIVI is the same Bible as the Childrens’ NIrV! After word leaked out about the NIrV’s "gender-bender" vocabulary, Zondervan quickly re-issued the NIrV (July 1998) minus the original feminist inclusive language. Not surprising, after researching the "gender-inclusive" issue, I’ve found many of the Children’s Bibles among the most corrupt and feminist influenced.

But as they say, "the times, they are a’changing".

So seven short years later, the NIV crew, along with Zondervan, are at it again. Come ‘hail or high water’ the NIV team is gonna dump a feminist NIV "gender inclusive" Bible on the U.S. And in March, 2002, the New Testament of the "gender inclusive" TNIV officially hit the streets of the good ol’ U.S.

This article is a lengthy look at Zondervan’s Today’s New International Version [TNIV]. This article began as a simple, short critique of the TNIV. But the more I researched. . . the more I read. . . the more alarmed and troubled I became. Even though, this is a lengthy article, it would be well worth your time to carefully and prayerfully read. This article goes far beyond the scope of the recent TNIV. You will see, without question, a deliberate, intentional, and completely inaccurate, mis-translation of the God-inspired, Greek text.

As you witness the blatant disregard for the Greek text, please bear in mind: that according to their own words – the TNIV translators are the same group using the same translation methodology as used in the highly successful "original" New International Version [NIV].

This is quoted directly from the TNIV web site:

"The fully independent body that translated the highly acclaimed NIV is the same eminent group that undertook the work on the TNIV. . .
The widely respected translation methodology that drove the scholarship of the NIV was maintained in the development of the TNIV. . ."
(Faithfully Produced by CBT, www.tniv.info/story/cbt.php)

Not only, are the TNIV crew proud of their "gender inclusive" TNIV, again, according to their own words, the TNIV is more accurate and a better translation than the "original" NIV.

Again, the following is taken form the TNIV web site:

"The NIV is an extremely accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 1984. The TNIV is an even slightly more accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 2001."
(TNIV FAQS, www.tniv.info/QandA.php)

As you read this disturbing review of the TNIV, be ever mindful – it is the same translation methodology, the same people, and the same beliefs, that produced the "original" NIV. And according to the people who translated and published both the NIV and TNIV – the feminist TNIV is more accurate and a better translation than the "original" NIV. That’s not my words, or thoughts – that’s their words – on their website, for all the world to read.

So what does that testify about the "original" NIV? I’ll let you answer that after you’ve finished reading this article.

The fact is, the "original" NIV was stuffed with "gender inclusive" language. But unlike, the TNIV, the "original" NIV was not advertised as a "gender-accurate" Bible.

Gail Riplinger writes in The Language of the King James Bible:

"The recent clamour about a so-called inclusive language edition of the NIV, is just a smoke screen, hiding the fact the NIV has, since its introduction in 1973, omitted male pronouns, like ‘he’ and ‘him’. Chapter 5 of my book New Age Bible Versions documents dozens and dozens of places where male terms, and Jesus Christ himself, are neutered by the NIV."
(Gail Riplinger, The Language of the King James Bible, p. 114)

Professor Mark Strauss, who is a proponent of the "gender-inclusive" Bibles, readily acknowledges the "gender inclusiveness" of the "original" NIV.

"In dozens of cases in the Old Testament, inclusive terms such as ‘people’ or ‘person(s),’ ‘one,’ ‘each,’ ‘anyone’ or ‘someone’ are used [in the New international Versions (NIV)]. . . The Greek term anthropos is also frequently translated with inclusive language in the NIV. . . There are many such inclusive renderings in the NIV. Comparing the translation of anthropos and aner in the NIV and the NIVI, Andreas Kostenberger found that ninety-five of the 550 appearances of anthropos and thirty of the 216 appearances of aner were translated inclusively in the original NIV."
(Mark L. Strauss, Distorting Scripture?, The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy, pp. 37-38)

The fact is, the NIV translators [CBT] original intention was for the "gender-inclusive" NIVI to replace the "original" NIV. World magazine details the CBT’s intention:

"Mr. Walker says the consensus of the Committee for Bible Translation in America is to have the unisex-language version ‘take the place of the other.’ [original NIV]"
(World Magazine, Femme Fatale cover story, March 29, 1997, www.worldmag.com/world/issue/03-29-97/cover_1.asp)

Kenneth Barker, the CBT chairman and secretary clearly says in World magazine, the CBT’s desire is to have only a "gender-inclusive" NIV:

"Mr. Barker says it will be the publisher's decision: "If our committee had its way there would be no separate inclusive-language edition." But he says, "I've heard–I can't say that this is actual fact–that Zondervan will keep making the two editions," at least for a while if the traditional version finds a market niche."
(World Magazine, Femme Fatale cover story, March 29, 1997, www.worldmag.com/world/issue/03-29-97/cover_1.asp)

As you read this alarming review of the TNIV – just remember – the people that translated the NIV-NIrV-NIVI-TNIV – want to replace all the Bibles with a deliberate, mis-translated "gender-inclusive" Bible. And remember, their first "attempt" was an undisclosed "gender-inclusive" disaster [NIrV] aimed for your children. After they got "caught", they quickly republished a semi "non-gender-inclusive" NIrV.

THE "GENDER-INCLUSIVE" BIBLE FLOOD. . .

It’s also worth mentioning, the TNIV is not the first "gender-inclusive" version. In fact, since 1985, nearly every version produced is a feminist-inspired, "gender-inclusive" version.

Professor Strauss writes in Distorting Scripture:

"Almost every major version that has been prepared or revised over the last decade had adopted the extensive use of such [gender-inclusive] language".
(Mark L. Strauss, Distorting Scripture?, The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy, p. 18)

All the following versions are "gender-inclusive" versions:

• 1983 An Inclusive Language Lectionary [ILL]
• 1985 New Jerusalem Bible [NJB]
• 1987 New Century Version [NCV]
• 1986 International Children’s Bible [ICB] (aka The Odyssey Bible)
• 1986 New American Bible, [NAB]
• 1989 Revised English Bible [REB]
• 1990 New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]
• 1992 Good News Bible [1992 Revision] [GNB]
• 1992 Today’s English Version [TEV]
• 1993 The Message
• 1994 The Inclusive New Testament [INT]
• 1995 Contemporary English Version [CEV]
• 1995 New American Standard Bible Update [NASBU]
• 1995 God's Word [GW]
• 1996 New International Reader's Version [Nirv] (Note. After negative reaction to the "gender-inclusive" 1995 version of the NirV, in 1998 the NIV crew updated the NirV removing much of the "gender-inclusive" readings.)
• 1996 New International Version, Inclusive Language Edition [NIVI] published ONLY in Great Britain by Hodder & Stoughton, London
• 1995 New Testament and Psalms, An Inclusive Version [NTPI]
• 1996 New Living Translation [NLT]
• 2002 Today's New International Version [TNIV]

All of the above versions, to some extent:

• Incorrectly neuter the clear, masculine Greek text. For example, the singular, masculine, "generic he / his / him" pronouns are incorrectly distorted to read neuter, plural, "they / them / their" or neuter, second person "you". This is done thousands of times.
• Incorrectly neuter the masculine Greek text for ‘man / men / mankind" to read "people / self / human / mortal, et al".
• Incorrectly neuter the masculine Greek text for "father" to read "ancestors / parents / et al".

All of the above "gender-inclusive" translation errors, plus others, will be examined in detail in this article.

THE "GENDER-INCLUSIVE" TRANSLATION TREASON. . .

Most of the "gender-inclusive" versions will scream "bloody murder" to even suggest there is any feminist influence, but make no mistake about it – it is the radical, feminist agenda that has pushed for the "gender –inclusive" language changes.

The Preface of the TNIV admits, "cultural FORCES" are the reasoning behind the "gender-inclusive" changes, such as elimination of the masculine pronouns:

"While a basic core of the English language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural forces continue to bring about the subtle [Gen 3:1] shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV is the removal of nearly all vocative ‘O’’s and the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns."
(TNIV, Preface, p. vii)

Now, what "cultural FORCE" is interested in the elimination of masculine nouns and pronouns? Only one. . . The radical, pro-abortion, feminist.

World magazine states that the NIV-NIrV-NIVI-TNIV translators were pressured by women for the gender inclusive changes:

"Pressure for unisex language came from women who, in the words of Mr. Walker, 'felt left out' by the traditional language."
(World Magazine, Femme Fatale cover story, March 29, 1997, www.worldmag.com/world/issue/03-29-97/cover_1.asp)

Gender-inclusive advocate and Professor of New Testament at Bethel Theological Seminary, Mark Strauss, traces the root of the gender-inclusive movement to the feminists.

"The debate over gender-inclusive language has its roots in the women’s rights movements."
(Mark L. Strauss, Distorting Scripture?, The Challenge of Bible Translation & Gender Accuracy, p. 16)

After investigating many "gender inclusive" changes made by the NIV team, Regent College professor and author J.I. Packer, hit the "nail on the head":

"adjustments made by what I call the feminist edition are not made in the interests of legitimate translation procedure. These changes have been made to pander to a cultural prejudice that I hope will be short-lived."
(World Magazine, The Battle for the Bible, Susan Olasky. Apr. 19, 1997)

CBT translation member, Larry Walker, even admits in World magazine that the unisex language ". . .bothered me at first. . .":

". . . Larry Walker of the NIV Committee says: Unisex language "bothered me to begin with very much. I guess I've evolved.’"
(World Magazine, Femme Fatale cover story, March 29, 1997, www.worldmag.com/world/issue/03-29-97/cover_1.asp)

Why did it "bother him" very much?

Could it be because. . . the NIV-TNIV-NIrV-NIVI translators knew they were deliberately and incorrectly perverting the clear, masculine, God-given, Greek text for a false, man-made, "gender-inclusive" neuter word?

Most pre "gender-inclusive" versions, even the worst, attempted, sometimes poorly or incorrectly, but at least, they attempted to translate the Greek text. But these "gender-inclusive" versions have opened a new dark, deceitful, door. Their translation methodology is how to NOT translate the Greek text. Their mind set is, "Hmm. . . Now how can we get around this male chauvinist, masculine, word?"

Notice how the TNIV translators word their "gender-inclusive" methods on the TNIV website:

"The term "gender-neutral" has often been used in error when used to describe inclusive language texts. The TNIV is in fact ‘gender-accurate.’ Gender neutrality suggests the removal of specific male or female attributes. The TNIV does not remove these attributes or "neuter" any passages of Scripture. The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women. These changes reflect a better understanding of the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew."
(TNIV: Questions and Answers, www.tniv.info/QandA.php)

The TNIV translators claim they can change the masculine Greek text because ". . . the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women." If the Lord God "intended" for the verse to read "they / them / their" or neutered, plural, gender – why didn’t God inspire the men that penned the Greek text to write "gender inclusive"? Hmm. . . ?

If God didn’t "intend" what He said – then why in the world, didn’t He say what He "intended"?

It sounds like the TNIV translators and publishers believe that God does not know what He’s doing. I guess, God Almighty, needs the NIV crew to come along and help Him "explain" what He "intended" to say.

The TNIV translators and publishers obviously claim they possess some psychic ability to know what ". . . the meaning of the text was intended." How do the TNIV translators know what the original writers "intended" – other than the words they penned? Are the TNIV translators omnipotent? Do they think they can "read the minds" of these men, who died thousands of years ago? The TNIV translators claim to know what these men [and God] "intended" – even when it disagrees with the words the men wrote? Men who were moved by the Holy Spirit of God? (2 Peter 1:21) Wow! That’s a pretty, nifty trick. The TNIV’s psychic "mind reading" abilities would even make the TV psychic Miss Cleo blush with embarrassment.

By the way, these are the same psychics that translated the "original" NIV. And according to their words – the same psychic translation methodology.

When you translate someone else’s work you don’t have the liberty to judge what they "intended" to say. You translate what they said! Can you imagine the uproar if the NIV-TNIV translators applied the same distorted psychic translation methods to Homer’s The Iliad, or Shakespeare’s Macbeth, or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address? And yet, the NIV-TNIV translators and publishers without hesitation will pervert the words of God!

And they admittedly confess, it’s no big deal. . .

Kenneth Barker, secretary of the Committee on Bible Translations [CBT], the same group that translated the NIV, NIVI and TNIV, just flat-out says changing God’s Word, to a feminist "gender-inclusive" reading, is "no big deal":

"It probably disturbs us that such a big deal is being made over inclusive language. After all it is not changing the sense of the passage."
Kenneth Barker, secretary of the CBT
World Magazine, Femme fatale, Mar. 29, 1997,Volume 12, Number 2, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/03-29-97/cover_1.asp)

Get that. . . The fact that they’re changing the God-breathed words is "no big deal". After all Barker says, ". . . it is not changing the sense of the passage". Mr. Barker, when you change the words – you are changing the sense of the passage. But when you’ve been doing in for 30 years via the NIV, I guess it is no big deal.

Did Jesus Christ say in Matthew 24:35:?

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my SENSE shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35

God forbid. . .Jesus Christ, clearly said His words, not the sense were inspired:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35
 

Who's to "judge" what deliberate changes does and does not change the sense? — the radical, feminists?

Jesus Christ clearly declared in Luke 4:4 ". . .every word. . " was inspired and God given.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4

It’s interesting, the NIV, TNIV (and most new PER versions) leave out the "but by every word of God." In Luke 4:4

Dr. Wayne Grudem, professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (www.cbmw.org) correctly diagnoses the danger of the NIVI and other Bible versions:

". . .the generic use of "he-him-his" has consistently been changed to "we" or "you" or "they." The result is that whenever readers of this inclusive-language NIV read the words "we" and "you" and "they," they will never know whether what they are reading is what God originally caused his Word to say, or what the translators have decided his Word should say instead. In hundreds and probably thousands of places, readers will never know whether these are the words of God or the words of man.

Such revisions are not the words God originally caused to be written, and thus they are not the words of God. They are human words that men have substituted for the words of God, and they have no place in the Bible."
(Wayne Grudem, Comparing the two NIVs, World Magazine. Apr. 19, 1997)