2 of 2

The anti-TNIV folks received some backing this week from a somewhat surprising source: The New York Times Magazine's Emily Nussbaum. "When you make literal changes for a readership that takes the Bible literally, you bump up against the fact that men and women in the Bible are not even remotely equal," she writes.

A truly gender-neutral interpretation of the Bible would quickly begin to fall apart at the seams—laws about rape or slavery rising up like invisible ink from ancient parchment. One solution, of course, is to reject the Bible entirely. Another is to regard it merely as a parable whose historical foundation can be ignored. But for anyone who wants to take religion seriously, neither solution truly suits. Instead, it seems necessary to confront the contradictions in the text—to keep the pronouns as they are and wrestle instead with the messy truth, like, well, manly Jacob with his angel. It's a more difficult task, but it's the only honest way out.

But Weblog isn't sure that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood will be touting their agreement with Nussbaum, editor of the erotica site Nerve.com.

One final note on the TNIV. A few days ago, Weblog noted that the CBMW had purchased a Google ad so that anyone searching for "TNIV" would come across their criticism of the translation. It looks like someone over at Zondervan reads Weblog—searches will now also see an ad link to the official TNIV site.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

See our past Weblog updates:

February 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4

February 1 | January 31 | 30 | 29 | 28

January 25 | 24 | 23 | 22 | 21

January 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14

January 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7

January 4 | 3 | 2 | December 31

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

February (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46