By far the most extensive damage performed by the inclusive-perversions is the extermination of the "generic" masculine pronouns, such as "he / him / his". Known as the "generic he", generic masculine pronouns are the standard method used in the English language when addressing an "indefinite" or "undefined" individual. Masculine pronouns, such as "he / him / his" are utilized to address both male and female when the gender is unknown. The "generic he" has been the accepted method literally, since the beginning of the English language. The Preface to the TNIV states: "While a basic core of the English language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex cultural forces [as in the feminists ‘cultural force’?] continue to bring about the subtle [see Gen 3:1] shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. Among the more programmatic changes in the TNIV is the removal of nearly all vocative ‘O’’s and the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns." (TNIV, Preface, p. vii, emphasis and bracketed comments added) Boy. . . the NIV translators weren’t just kidding when they declared ". . .the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns." With the exception of referring to specific male individuals, virtually every masculine pronoun is removed from the TNIV! The TNIV zaps ‘he’ over 1090 times – over 35% of ‘he’ is deleted. The TNIV zaps ‘him’ over 1600 times – a whopping 66% of ‘him’ is deleted. The TNIV zaps ‘his’ over 290 times – over 20% of ‘his’ is deleted. The NIV translators justify their zapping of over 3000 masculine pronouns by claiming "diverse" and "complex cultural forces" are "bringing about the subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even, old, well-established words and phrases". The NIV translators also state in the Preface, "the so-called singular ‘they/their/them,’ which has been gaining acceptance among careful writers and which actually has a venerable place in English idiom, has been employed to fill in the vocabulary gap in generic nouns and pronouns referring to human beings. . ." Reading the Preface to the TNIV, one would think no respectable journalist would dare use the "generic he". After all, the Preface states, the "careful writers" are using the "so-called singular ‘they/their/them’". Well, aren’t they. . .? Hum. . . . . The acclaimed Strunk and White’s, The Elements of Style, is by far the most recommended and respected concise handbook for writers in existence. Amazon.com lists many accolades and praises for Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style: "No book in shorter space, with fewer words, will help any writer more than this persistent little volume." — The Boston Globe ". . . Should be the daily companion of anyone who writes for a living, and for that matter, anyone who writes at all." — Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News "This excellent book, which should go off to college with every freshman, is recognized as the best book of its kind we have." — St. Paul Dispatch – Pioneer Press How does Strunk and White advise concerning that mean, sexist, "generic he"? "Do not use they when the antecedent is a distributive expression such as each, each one, everybody, every one, many a man. Use the singular pronoun [he, his, him]." (William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition, 2000, p. 60) Strunk and White then lists the following "correct and incorrect" examples: [incorrect] Every one of us knows they are fallible. [correct] Every one of us knows he is fallible. [incorrect] Everyone in the community, whether they are a member of the Association or not, is invited to attend. [correct] Everyone in the community, whether he is a member of the Association or not, is invited to attend. "The use of he as a pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language." (William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition, 2000, p. 60) It should be mentioned, this is from the 2000 edition of Strunk and White’s, The Elements of Style. An edition clearly aware of the feminist agenda to eliminate the use of the "generic he", and over 8 years [1992] after the start of the gender-inclusive NIV. Strunk and White also states concerning the ‘generic he’: "It [the generic he] has no pejorative [derogatory, or belittling effect, negative, sexist] connotations; it is never incorrect." (William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Revised Edition, 1979, p. 60) The highly esteemed Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, boasts of over 1.6 million copies sold. In fact, the AP Stylebook is the number one selling and most widely used journalism reference book in the world. How does the AP Stylebook instruct the journalists on the "generic he"? "Use the pronoun his when an indefinite antecedent may be male or female: [Example] A reporter attempts to protect his sources." (Norm Goldstein, The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, 2000 edition, p. 114) Probably, the two most respected and utilized journalists reference books in the world, approve and even recommend the "generic he". And yet, according to their own words, the NIV translators goal is "the elimination of most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns." Nearly every Dictionary in existence, both old and new, will list the "generic he" as a valid definition for "he": Webster’s 1828 Dictionary he, pronoun of the third person; 1. A pronoun, a substitute for the third person, masculine gender, representing the man or male person named before. 2. It often has reference to a person that is named in the subsequent part of the sentence. He is the man. 3. He is often used without reference to any particular person, and may be referred to any person indefinitely that answers the description. 4. He, when a substitute for man in its general sense, expressing mankind, is of common gender, representing, like its antecedent, the whole human race. The Grosset Webster Dictionary of 1966: he pronoun 1. The male person mentioned previously. 2. Anyone. (The Grosset Webster Dictionary, 1966, p. 281) The current Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: he 1 : that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer 2 – used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified <one should do the best he can> (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) Every dictionary I found, listed the "generic he" as a valid definition. The following dictionaries all defined a "generic he": American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, 1994 American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2000 Oxford American Dictionary, 1986 New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001 New Pocket Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition, 2001 Webster’s New World Students Dictionary, 1996 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 2001 The following "real life" examples illustrate the "generic he" masculine pronoun in action: "To graduate to the second stage, the novice must pass a road test and have no moving violations or at-fault accidents. If he does, he remains at the first stage while he takes a driver-education refresher course." (Reader’s Digest, Dec., 1999, p. 129) "Even a moderate phone user should be able to save 25 percent of his monthly bill by shopping around." (Reader’s Digest, Feb., 1999, p. 135) "Nobody comes off a trans-Atlantic flight looking better than when he got on it" (Chicago Tribune, Aug. 22, 1999, Sec. 8, p. 3) Many of our most treasured speeches and documents use the "generic he". Martin Luther King’s famous "I Had A Dream Speech": One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. . . There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. . . . One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land . . . We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. . . The US Constitution utilizes the "generic he" throughout: For instance, Article 1, section 2, which lists the requirements of the House of Representatives: "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen." For instance, Article 1, section 3, which lists the requirements of a Senator: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. Did the "generic he" in the U.S. Constitution keep Hillary Clinton, the feminist "poster child", from running for Senator? Did Hillary read the "generic he" and say, "Well, I guess I can not run for Senate". Of course, not. In fact over 70 women are currently serving in Congress. So, why are the NIV translators (CBT), publisher (Zondervan) and copyright holder (International Bible Society) so determined to eliminate the generic masculine pronouns? Surely, the reason must be the Greek text demands the extermination of the English generic masculine pronouns. I’m sure as we examine the underlying Greek text, we’ll clearly see why the NIV translators are bound and determined to root out every "jot or tittle" of the "generic he". What saith the Greek? Matthew 10:24 is a good place to start: The KJB reads in Matthew 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. The TNIV reads in Matthew 10:24 "Students are not above their teacher, nor servants above their master. Does the Greek text match the singular masculine KJB or the plural neuter TNIV? Without ANY doubt, without ANY debate – WHATSOEVER. . . The Greek is SINGULAR and is MASCULINE. . . Here’s briefly the Greek evidence. . . is estin {singular IS} disciple maqhthV {singular A DISCIPLE} servant douloV {singular A SERVANT} his autou {HIS LORD} The TNIV incorrectly and intentionally MIS-translate the following: Subject - from singular ‘disciple’ to plural ‘students’ Verb – singular ‘is’ to plural ‘are’ Subject – from singular ‘servant’ to plural ‘servants’ Pronoun – from singular, masculine ‘his’ to neuter, plural ‘their’ Why? The Greek CLEARLY is singular and masculine. Going completely defiant to the "God-breathed" Greek text found in ANY and EVERY manuscript in the world, the NIV translators change the subjects, the verbs, the pronouns – for ONE reason – and ONE reason ONLY – to remove the masculine pronoun. And they do this hundreds and hundreds of times! Now, may I ask – who would be so upset about the generic masculine pronoun? What single "cultural forces" (as the TNIV Preface ‘reasoning’ admits) would desire a MIS-translation to remove the "generic he"? Only One and One and Only – the radical, extremist, militant, feminist! And clearly that is ‘cultural force’ the TNIV team (and the other gender-inclusive MIS-translations) pleases by removing the generic masculine references. The greatest books in print on English journalism approves and recommends the generic masculine pronoun. God, who inspired and wrote the Greek text, clearly desires the generic masculine pronouns. And yet, the NIV translators ignore the Greek text and distort hundreds and hundreds of verses – because of ‘cultural forces’! According to Word Magazine, the "gender inclusive" New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) changed over 3,400 verses just to remove the generic use of "he-him-his". (Comparing the two NIV, Wayne Grudem, World Magazine, April 19, 1997) Remember where we previously read in the TNIV Preface about "the so-called singular ‘they/their/them,’ which has been gaining acceptance among careful writers and which actually has a venerable place in English idiom, has been employed to fill in the vocabulary gap in generic nouns and pronouns referring to human beings. . ." The ". . . so-called SINGULAR ‘they/their/them. . ."? What first grade elementary student doesn’t know "they/their/them" are third person PLURAL pronouns? You can "call" them "so-called SINGULAR" till the cows come home but they are still PLURAL pronouns. They are PLURAL pronouns today. . . And they will be PLURAL pronouns tomorrow – despite the feminist "cultural force". The TNIV’s claim of, ". . . gaining acceptance among careful writers and which actually has a venerable place in English idiom. . ." is just another way of saying – because the radical, extremist, militant, feminists despise the generic masculine pronouns, and they have "yelled so loud and so long" some spineless writers, academia, media and Bible translators have cowered down and perverted the PLURAL third person pronouns [they, their, them] into SINGULAR neuter pronouns to please the militant feminists. I have a good question for the TNIV translators and their "so-called SINGULAR ‘they/their/them"? If they are indeed, "so-called SINGULAR ‘they/their/them" – then why do you change the SUBJECTS and VERBS to PLURAL? Hum. . . . The ". . . so-called SINGULAR ‘they/their/them. . ."? You’ve got to be kidding. . . Do you trust the words of God with the TNIV translators? May I remind you. . . this is the same group, the same mindset, the same beliefs and the same methodology that translated the "original" New International Version (NIV)? Here it is from the "horses mouth" (a.k.a. from the TNIV web site): "The fully independent body that translated the highly acclaimed NIV is the same eminent group that undertook the work on the TNIV. . . The widely respected translation methodology that drove the scholarship of the NIV was maintained in the development of the TNIV. . ." (Faithfully Produced by CBT, www.tniv.info/story/cbt.php) May I also remind you. . . This is also the same group, the same mindset, the same beliefs, the same methodology, the same philosophy, the same agenda, that MIS-translated the British-bound New International Version Inclusive (NIVI) that was so corrupted with the extreme, radical, feminist agenda it was banned from sale in the USA! The "Joke of the Century" is on the TNIV web site: "Revisions were checked for accuracy against the original languages and reviewed one by one for faithfulness, communication and style. Only when a revision in English matched the accuracy of the original languages did it make its way into the TNIV." (Faithfully Produced by CBT, www.tniv.info/story/cbt.php) "ONLY when a revision in English matched the accuracy of the original languages did it make its way into the TNIV." Yeah. . . Right. . . And the moon is made of blue cheese. But then again, the following statement on the International Bible Society’s (IBS) web site might win the "Joke of the Century" award. The IBS own the copyright (and are a major financial supporter) of the NIV, NIVI and the TNIV. Commenting on the TNIV, the IBS state on their website: "We believe that earnest Christians want total accuracy in translation, with no bowing to a feminist agenda, no compromise with the biblical text. That is precisely what IBS [a.k.a. TNIV] has been and is totally committed to as well." (NIV FAQ, www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/niv_faq.php) Yes. Christians certainly do want ". . .total accuracy in translation, with no bowing to a feminist agenda, no compromise with the biblical text." And that's EXACTLY the reason to avoid the TNIV and these new versions like a "rabid pit bull with AIDS". The TNIV translators dig a bigger hole of deceit with the following absurd quote: "The TNIV is in fact 'gender-accurate.' Gender neutrality suggests the removal of specific male or female attributes. The TNIV does not remove these attributes or "neuter" any passages of Scripture." (TNIV: Questions and Answers, www.tniv.info/QandA.php) It is NOT "gender-accurate". We have seen many times, and we’ll see many more, where the TNIV, completely ignores the clear, masculine Greek text and neuters the verse. Not once. Not twice, but hundreds and hundreds of times. Unbelievable. . . Most translators (even the worst) at least attempt to correctly TRANSLATE the Greek text. But the FACT is, the TNIV (and other gender inclusive versions) invent ways to INCORRECTLY TRANSLATE the Greek text to remove the "God Breathed" generic masculine pronouns! And that’s a FACT – JACK. That’s the TRUTH – RUTH! And that’s for REAL – BILL! Knowing the disrespect and intentionally, mis-translation of the "God breathed" Greek text, the following statement written on the TNIV website, is truly a very alarming and eye-opening statement: "The NIV is an extremely accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 1984. The TNIV is an even slightly more accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 2001." (TNIV FAQS, www.tniv.info/QandA.php) Well. . . well . . . well. . . That ought to wake some people up. . . If the TNIV is more accurate (with hundreds and hundreds of PROVEN deliberate mis-translations) than the "original" NIV – what does this say ‘loud and clear’ about the NIV? It says EXACTLY what we and others have documented for years – the "original" New International Version (NIV) is a distorted, faulty, mis-translation. For more info on the errors and mis-translations in the NIV: Could The NIV be the True Word of God? by Dr. Paul Heaton New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger 356 Doctrinal Errors in the N.I.V. and other Modern Versions by Dr. Jack Moorman Analysis Of the New International Version by Dr. Gene Nowlin ASV, NASV & NIV Departures from the Traditional Hebrew/Greek Text by Dr. D. A. Waite Can the New International Version Be Trusted? By Cecil Carter Correction or Corruption—NASB & NIV Critique by Bill Mosley Critique of the New International Version (NIV) by Jay Green Doctrinal Terms (44) Missing/Reduced in the NIV by Dr. D.A. Waite If the Foundations Be Destroyed—N.I.V. Against Jesus by Chick Salliby Missing in Modern Bibles—Nestle-Aland & NIV Errors by Dr. Jack Moorman NIV Downgrades Our Lord Jesus Christ by Ev. W. Fowler New International PERVersions by Terry Watkins Bible Version Comparison by Terry Watkins Review of NIV and NASV by Dr. Perry Rockwood Should We Trust The New International Version? That’s just a few of the many sources documenting the inaccuracies in the "original" New International Version (NIV). The TNIV damage of eliminating the "generic he". Besides not being true to the Greek text. . . Besides intentionally mis-translating "thus saith the Lord" – there is an inherent danger of removing the singular masculine pronoun – you confuse the reader’s focus from an ‘individual’ to a ‘group’. By replacing the direct, singular third person pronoun [he, his, him] with the indirect, plural third person pronoun [they, them, those] or with the indirect, second person neuter pronoun [you, your] the individual responsibility and focus of the reader is blurred. That essential relationship and communication between the individual and God is missing. Author William Zinsser, in the best-selling, On Writing Well, warns of the effects of converting the singular "he" with the plural "they": "A style that converts every ‘he’ into a ‘they’ will quickly turn to mush. . . I don’t like plurals; they weaken writing because they are less specific from the singular, less easy to visualize." (William Zinsser, On Writing Well, p. 123) Strunk and Whites’, highly respected, The Elements of Style, also cautions against replacing the singular "he" with the plural "they": "Alternatively, put all controversial nouns in the plural and avoid the choice of sex altogether, you may find your prose sounding general and diffuse [not concentrated, indirect]" (Strunk and Whitle, Elements of Style, p. 61) The clear "he" becomes a muddled, hazy "they". Compare John 10:9 in the King James Bible (KJB) with Today’s New International Version (TNIV), notice how the individual audience is lost with the plural they: John 10:9, KJB I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9, TNIV I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. John 10:9, in the TNIV, is no longer addressing the individual person [any man, he], but now a group [whoever, they]. God’s message of salvation is to the individual, not a group, not a church – but a single, individual, person. And the simple effects of these hundreds of perverse, mis-translations to appease the radical feminists could be devastating. As that old song affirms: Not my mother, not my father, but it's me O Lord standin' in the need of prayer. Not the deacon, not the elder, but it's me, O Lord, standin' in the need of prayer. Not my sister, not my brother, but it's me,O Lord, standin' in the need of prayer. Salvation is an individual accountability. You’d better believe Satan would love to confuse the individual’s attention and accountability. By replacing the direct, singular pronoun with the indirect, plural is a very effective method to obscure the individual’s accountability. The following is some verses where the "generic" masculine pronoun is eliminated. And in every case, the Greek text is singular, masculine and correct in the King James Bible. And in every case, the TNIV intentionally, mis-translates the Greek text. As you read through the verses, notice the amount of rewording, changes, etc. the TNIV invent for the sole purpose to remove any masculine reference. Most of the time they will convert the verse to use plural pronouns [they / them / their]. Some times the TNIV translators will transform the verse from third person singular [he / him / his] to the second person neuter [you / your]. Other times they may change the voice from active to passive and simply remove the pronouns in the process – but somehow, someway – that mean, nasty, sexist masculine pronoun has got to go. Notice, also how hazy and murky the distorted verses can become. In fact, some are down right silly. Dr. Wayne Grudem, professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (www.cbmw.org) warns of the consequence in removing the masculine pronouns: ". . .the generic use of "he-him-his" has consistently been changed to "we" or "you" or "they." The result is that whenever readers of this inclusive-language NIV read the words "we" and "you" and "they," they will never know whether what they are reading is what God originally caused his Word to say, or what the translators have decided his Word should say instead. In hundreds and probably thousands of places, readers will never know whether these are the words of God or the words of man. Such revisions are not the words God originally caused to be written, and thus they are not the words of God. They are human words that men have substituted for the words of God, and they have no place in the Bible." (Wayne Grudem, Comparing the two NIVs, World Magazine. Apr. 19, 1997) This is a small sample of the hundreds of verses that are clearly mis-translated: Matthew 10:38, KJB And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:38, TNIV Those who do not take up their cross and follow me are not worthy of me. Matthew 12:30, KJB He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12:30, TNIV Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Mark 8:36-37, KJB For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Mark 8:36-37, TNIV What good is it for you to gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul? Or what can you give in exchange for your soul? Luke 9:23, KJB And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. Luke 9:23, TNIV Then he said to them all: "Those who would be my disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. John 3:21, KJB But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:21, TNIV But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. John 3:36, KJB He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36, TNIV Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. John 6:47, KJB Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47, TNIV Very truly I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. (NOTICE: The "on me" is left out of the TNIV, also left out in the less accurate NIV.) John 7:38, KJB He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:38, TNIV Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within them." John 10:9, KJB I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. John 10:9, TNIV I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. John 11:25, KJB Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 11:25, TNIV Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die; John 14:23, KJB Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. John 14:23, TNIV Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 1 Corinthians 2:15, KJB But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 1 Corinthians 2:15, TNIV The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, Galatians 6:7, KJB Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7, TNIV Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. People reap what they sow. 1 Timothy 3:1, KJB This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1 Timothy 3:1, TNIV Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Timothy 2:4, KJB No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 2 Timothy 2:4, TNIV No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs; rather, they try to please their commanding officer. 1 John 5:5, KJB Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 1 John 5:5, TNIV Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 1 John 5:12, KJB He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:12, TNIV Those who have the Son have life; those who do not have the Son of God do not have life. Revelation 3:5, KJB He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Revelation 3:5, TNIV Those who are victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out their names from the book of life, but will acknowledge their names before my Father and his angels. Revelation 3:20, KJB Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20, TNIV Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me. Revelation 21:7, KJB He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. Revelation 21:7, TNIV Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.