[1] ``The word 'man', for example, is now widely understood to refer only to males, even though that is often not the intention of the corresponding Greek and Hebrew words. Instances of potential confusion abound, as in instructions about preparing for the Lord's Supper ('A man ought to examine himself', 1 Corinthians 11:28), ... ''
[2] ``The first principle was to retain the gender used in the original languages when referring to God, angels and demons. At the same time, it was recognized that it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit. This involved distinguishing between those passages in which an activity was normally carried out by either males or females, and other cases where the gender of the people concerned was less precisely identified. WHilin cases of the former the text could be left unaltered, in cases of the latter words like `workmen' could be changed to `worker' or `craftsman' to `skilled worker'. ''
[3] ``Female words such as `maid' or `girl' , which in recent years have developed a more pejorative connotation, would usually be replaced.''
[4] ``We believe that the changes introduced will remove the obstacles to understanding experienced by some readers, and so enable a new generation to read the Word of God in language they can understand.''
The CBT's objection to ``the patriarchalism'' is particularly interesting. This is a code word of feminists for human society, and its connotation is anti-Christian--- the patriarchs, of course, cannot help but be patriarchal. Abraham were fine fellows--for their day-- but of course we know much better nowadays, and the CBT needs to fix up the patriarch's unconscious sexism. The ``biblical writers'' wrote for their own time, and are out of date in the 1990's, so the CBT, having their own better evidence about the the message of the Spirit than the Bible can provide, must fix up the language. So goes the thinking of the CBT.
It is also evidence of feminism that `maid' and `girl' are considered pejorative. I wonder if the CBT considers `virgin' pejorative too.
Those two passages slip out of the official CBT-IBS-Zondervan position that the revisions are not motivated by feminism, but only by a desire for clarity. Passages [1] and [4] are examples of that position, which I criticize elsewhere . The position is almost self-evidently wrong. Does anybody really read 1 Corinthians 11:28 and think that women ought not examine themselves before taking communion?
Postscript: I think it is significant that the title is ``Preface to Inclusive Language NIV'' rather than ``Preface to the Inclusive Language NIV''. The difference is not one of meaning, but one of correct grammar and beauty, further evidence of the deficiencies of the CBT in both areas.