Direct Answer
The transcript does not directly explain why modern Christians prefer the hair-length interpretation, but it presents the NIV footnote as an example of a translation shaped by interpretation rather than the Greek text. The implication is that difficult teachings may be softened or redirected when they conflict with readers’ assumptions or preferences.
Support from Transcript
- Bercot cites the NIV marginal rendering of 1 Corinthians 11, where the issue becomes “long hair” for men and “no covering of hair” for women. - The footnote says a woman “should grow it again,” making Paul’s teaching about hair rather than a separate covering. - Bercot says, “That’s almost as bad as the Living Bible.” - He insists, “That rendition is in no way an alternate translation of the Greek text.” - He calls it “nothing more than a fanciful interpretation or a commentary.” - He uses this example to show that “human biases sometimes alter the very words” in Bibles.
Discussion Follow-ups
The transcript supports the idea that interpreters may avoid uncomfortable apostolic practices by making the passage say something more acceptable to modern readers.