Men don't go to church anymore because the church is out to cancel them. That's part of it, anyway. Why go where you're not wanted or respected?
The Acts of the Apostles in The New International Version of the Bible is a good example of this.
The NIV, perhaps the best selling Bible in America, especially among Evangelicals, wants its translation to reflect gender equality, so, for example, whenever brothers appears it often adds "sisters" even though "sisters" is not even there. The NIV's gender equality ideology actually trumps the text by adding "sisters" in 124 places where the Greek New Testament doesn't have it. It also adds the singular "sister" about 26 times. I guess the feeling on the part of the women is that the sisters have been canceled long enough, but the fact is they were never there to be canceled in the first place.
We meet up with this even more acutely, however, in Acts, which is famous for its many orations by individuals which begin "Men, brothers" or "Men and brothers" (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί), but "men" in these cases are actively canceled by the NIV.
An NIV footnote to the first of these at Acts 1:16 informs us that
The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family; also in 6:3; 11:29; 12:17; 16:40; 18:18, 27; 21:7, 17; 28:14, 15.
Yes, Inigo, they keep using that word but it does not mean what they think it means. If the text had meant to add "sisters" (ἀδελφαὶ) it would have. Unfortunately for the NIV, "sisters" appears just nine times (or eight) in the Greek New Testament, and this ain't one of 'em. It goes without saying that "sisters" is missing also in 6:3; 11:29; kai ta loipa (the funniest of these being Acts 6:3 where the NIV with a straight face wants us to imagine that The Twelve tell the brothers and sisters to choose seven "men").
The tell though is that the NIV manages to never translate ἄνδρες in these instances in Acts, except where it absolutely had no other choice in Acts 7:26. Otherwise the "men-ness" of the brothers is simply ignored, because it is counter evidence to the NIV's assertion that adelphoi means "brothers and sisters".
Here are all the instances of canceling ἄνδρες before ἀδελφοί in the NIV of Acts:
The NIV has "brothers and sisters" at Acts 1:16;
"fellow Israelites" (not there at all!) at Acts 2:29;
"brothers" at Acts 2:37;
"brothers and fathers" (fathers is there) at Acts 7:2, even though it had to translate "Men you are brothers" at Acts 7:26 (the NIV shows by this that it knows it is up to no good);
"brothers" at Acts 13:15;
"fellow children" at Acts 13:26 (ROFLMAO);
"my friends" at Acts 13:38 (even more ROFLMAO);
"brothers" at Acts 15:7, 13;
"brothers and fathers" at Acts 22:1;
and "my brothers" (!) at Acts 23:1, 6; and Acts 28:17, ending on a chummy note that isn't there either.
This is a completely disgraceful business, an indefensible slaughterhouse of "men" and the maleness of ἀδελφοί.
No wonder men don't go anymore.
The King James Version (observe "Men, brethren" as opposed to "Men and brethren" at Acts 7:2, 26 and Acts 22:1), and Young's Literal Translation both are among the translations which retain the forms of address which preserve the maleness and the dignity of the brothers as men.
The RSV was the Bible of my youth, and the KJV has been the Bible of my old age. But the NIV will never even be a Bible to me. It is literally an abomination.
 |
| KJV |
 |
| YLT |
