Browsing through my inbox, I found the latest Sojourners update. They've been hitting the health care debate pretty hard, but have of course been publishing other stuff. Take, for example, Eugene Cho's pining over the discontinuation of his beloved TNIV translation of the Bible.

"I know that the TNIV is not a perfect translation. Regardless of what folks may think, there is no perfect translation, but like other translations I read and respect, the TNIV is a scholarly and faithful translation of the holy scriptures. And while no translation should be held hostage to any particular agendas, I very much appreciated its willingness to take gender inclusivity [sic.] as one of numerous important considerations" [bold emphasis in original, italic emphasis mine].

Uh-oh. I should note that I don't use either the TNIV or the NIV (I prefer a combination of the New Jerusalem, New American, and Duay-Rheims translations). However, any time I hear about gender inclusiveness a bell goes off in my mind; and I don't mean that in the sense of "oh, another angel has gained his wings just now!"

"The TNIV is not about gender inclusivity [sic.] but, sadly, it was pegged and even advertised as such. The TNIV is about the holy scriptures foremost. And while others will strongly disagree, I find it difficult for translations NOT to take into account appropriate gender neutrality and inclusivity [sic.], which is why I was very disappointed to read yesterday that the TNIV will be abandoned and cited as a “mistake” by its publishers." [Again, bold emphasis in original, italic emphasis mine].

If the translation is *not* about gender inclusiveness but rather "scholarly and faithful translation," then why lament the loss of inclusiveness? The publishers, after all, are reporting that the TNIV was a mistake. There are plenty of other "scholarly and faithful" translations of the Bible; some may even be made by Protestants. Yet, very few of these include much in the way of "gender inclusive" language. This may have something to do with the fact that the language of revelation is often very precise, exact, and--not gender inclusive. Or is the purpose of "scholarly and faithful" translation to correct God, His Son, and His apostles and prophets? Perhaps it is meant to tell us what God *really* means to tell us--a thing which only took nearly 2000 years to discover, and which was then quickly abandoned as a mistake.