Gender Neutral Bible?

Really?  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42138347/ns/us_news/#

I have to chew on this one for awhile.  I honestly don't have an opinion... yet.  They left God alone, thank goodness.  But so as not to offend the axe-wielding, hi-ho humming liberal chicks (I guess) somebody decided to change it up and say things like "People do not live on bread alone."  ohhhh-kaaaay.... cuz we really thought the Bible was only talking about men.  Or maybe God thinks all men need to go on the Atkin's diet?!  Perhaps I'm developing my opinion as I'm typing.  It's late.  I'll stop this rambling and at least sleep on it.  But my first inclination is to say this:  "Good grief!"
 
*********************************************************
Here's the text of the article above,
if you don't want to or can't get to it with that link.
 
NASHVILLE, Tenn.— In the old translation of
the world's most popular Bible, John the
Evangelist declares: "If anyone says, 'I love
God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." Make
that "brother or sister" in a new translation
that includes more gender-neutral language
and is drawing criticism from some
conservatives who argue the changes can alter
the theological message.

The 2011 translation of the New International
Version Bible, or NIV, does not change
pronouns referring to God, who remains "He"
and "the Father." But it does aim to avoid using
"he" or "him" as the default reference to an
unspecified person.

The NIV Bible is used by many of the largest
Protestant faiths. The translation comes from
an independent group of biblical scholars that
has been meeting yearly since 1965 to discuss
advances in biblical scholarship and changes
in English usage.

Before the new translation even hit stores, it
drew opposition from the Council on Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood, an organization
that believes women should submit to their
husbands in the home and only men can hold
some leadership roles in the church.

The council decided it would not endorse the
new version because the changes alter "the t
heological direction and meaning of the text,"
according to a statement. Similar concerns led
the Southern Baptist Convention to reject the
 
NIV's previous translation in 2005.

At issue is how to translate pronouns that
apply to both genders in the ancient Greek and
Hebrew texts but have traditionally been
translated using masculine forms in English.

An example from the translator's notes for
Mark 4:25 to show how the NIV's translation
of these words has evolved over the past
quarter-century.

The widely distributed 1984 version of the NIV
quotes Jesus: "Whoever has will be given
more; whoever does not have, even what he
has will be taken from him."

The more recent incarnation of the NIV from
2005, called Today's New International
Version, changed that to: "Those who have will
be given more; as for those who do not have,
even what they have will be taken from them."

The CBMW had complained in 2005 that
New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language
At issue is how to translate pronouns that apply to both genders
 
making the subject of a verse plural to convey
that it could refer equally to a man or a woman
"potentially obscured an important aspect of
biblical thought — that of the personal
relationship between an individual and God."

The NIV 2011 seems to have taken that
criticism into account and come up with a
compromise: "Whoever has will be given more;
whoever does not have, even what they have
will be taken from them."

While the translators' former grammar
teachers may not like it, the translators offer a
strong justification for their choice of "they"
(instead of the clunky "he or she") and "them"
(instead of "him or her") to refer back to the
singular "whoever."

They commissioned an extensive study of the
way modern English writers and speakers
convey gender inclusiveness. According to the
translators' notes on the Committee on Bible
Translation's website, "The gender-neutral
pronoun 'they' ('them'/'their') is by far the
most common way that English-language
speakers and writers today refer back to
singular antecedents such as 'whoever,'
'anyone,' 'somebody,' 'a person,' 'no one,' and
the like."

Randy Stinson, president of the CBMW and
dean of the School of Church Ministries at the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said
the changes are especially important to
evangelicals.

'Every word'
"Evangelicals believe in the verbal plenary
inspiration of scripture. We believe every word
is inspired by God, not just the broad
thought," he said.

So if the original text reads "brothers" — even
 
if that word in the original language is known
to mean "brothers and sisters" (such as the
Hebrew "achim" or Spanish word "hermanos")
— many evangelicals believe the English
translation should read "brothers."

Stinson said a notes section would be the best
place to point out that the original word could
be read to include men and women.

It's not yet known if the Southern Baptist
Convention will reject the new translation the
way it did the 2005 version. The nation's
largest Protestant denomination still sells the
1984 translation in its stores. If it chooses to
condemn the new version, that would happen
at its national convention in June.

The publisher says the NIV 2011 will replace
both the 1984 and 2005 versions.

Even while panning the new translation, the
CBMW thanked the Committee on Bible
Translation for being open about the process
they used to develop it. That included taking
comments from all sides of the gender debate.

And the new version doesn't always use
gender neutral language. It takes reader
sensibility into account by not using inclusive
terms for some of the most familiar verses
where that might sound jarring. For instance,
Matthew 4:4 is rendered, "'Man shall not live
on bread alone."

That's a change from the TNIV, where the
same phase read, "People do not live on bread
alone."

"I think that clause has entered into standard
English," translator Douglas Moo explained of
the move back to the more traditional "man."
"People know it who don't know the Bible."

Moo said the translators hope that the
phrasing of the new NIV is so natural that the
average reader won't be aware of any of the
gender language concerns that are debated by
biblical scholars and linguists.

'God's unchanging word'
The group's website says its goal is "to
articulate God's unchanging Word in the way
the original authors might have said it if they
had been speaking in English to the global
English-speaking audience today."

While the change to the generic "man" in
verses like Matthew 4:4 is applauded by the C
ouncil on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,
linguist Joel M. Hoffman, author of "And God
Said — How Translations Conceal the Bible's
Original Meaning," said it is simply incorrect.

"'Anthropos' (the Greek word in the original
text) means 'person,' plain and simple," he
said. "It's as much a mistake as translating
'parent' as 'father.'"

He doesn't buy the argument that "man" is
understood in English to refer to men and
women.

 
"If you walk into a church on Sunday morning
and say, 'Will every man stand up?' I would be
shocked if the women stood up, too."