My initial reaction when reading the principles of the CBT re the NIV2011 was that I expected something good. It then occurred to me that whatever needs to be said to curry favour with whoever will probably be said and so I didn't hold out hopes too much.
Having looked at a few passages and compared English translations and my elementary knowledge of Greek I have appreciated the translation and its philosophy. The problem is that the layperson doesn't actually know what goes into translating. I one of my first Greek lectures in which the lecturer gave us the Italian quote, "Tradutorre Traditore" i.e. "The translator is a traitor" (I probably remember that because I enjoyed the irony).
As has been said, it's not as simple as saying, "Oh, it's masculine. Therefore, it's talking about males". "Brothers" is clearly not used by Paul to address the men in the congregation alone in every instance (though perhaps this is true of some) unless you want to try to argue for something like women being saved through child bearing? Maybe that's not the best route to take for conservatives though.
I read CBMW's article and didn't think too highly of it anyway. What seems to be lacking in the whole debate is scholarly debate that the layman can grasp. I'm still not as critical of CBMW as some have been and although I'm not perfectly happy with the NIV2011 I'm not going to relegate it as willingly as others have but I have the advantage of enough Greek to make informed comments on translation decisions.
Thanks for the balanced article. I had thought perhaps I was alone in my liberal-conservative opinions.
More information about formatting options