Featured Humanoids

Myself

1) CSB : 125
2) NLT : 127
3) NET : 149
4) NASB : 151
5) NIV : 153
6) NRSV : 178
7) CEB : 191
8) LEB : 254

 

As Rob said, the word 'brethren' was "an English gender-inclusive term with a masculine derivation." It did not refer to exclusively adult male believers.

 

This is 2020. And with that keen vision, we know that the word 'brethren' used in the original sense,doesn't cut it any longer.

 

Whoever

1) NLT : 42
2) LEB : 135
3) NASB : 163
4) NET : 167
5) CSB : 176
6) CEB : 215
7) NIV : 243
8) NRSV : 245
9) ESV : 305

New Testament

1) NLT : 15
2) LEB : 63
3) CSB : 68
4) NET : 70
5) NASB : 71
6) NRSV : 105
7) CEB : 111
8) NIV : 117
9) ESV : 127

 

However you think we got to the place where were are presently with respect to the state of the English language --we are we are. You can't turn back the hands of time.

I have occasionally attended KJVO churches in America and South Korea (an American pastor). I have heard pastors say "Brethren, and you sistern too, because that's what it means..." These fundamentalist KJVO preachers know even that revered Bible version has misleading language at times, or at least expressions that could easily be misunderstood.

William Tyndale and Martin Luther would be in my corner regarding this. The language of Scripture should be in the common vernacular. It's not street slang; it's ordinary spoken and written English.

 

Anyone

1) NASB : 182
2) ESV : 244
3) LEB : 259
4) NET : 289
5) NRSV: 357
6) CSB : 361
7) CEB : 429
8) NLT : 464
9) NIV : 480

New Testament

1)NASB : 117
2) CEB : 122
3 LEB : 135
4) NET : 140
5) ESV : 147
6) NRSV : 153
7) CSB : 191
8) NIV : 208
9) NLT : 223

 

Everyone

1) ESV : 190
2) NASB : 193
3) LEB : 207
4) NET : 239
5) NIV : 262
6) NRSV : 272
7) CSB : 319
8) NLT : 429
9) CEB : 494

New Testament

1) NASB : 80
2) ESV : 84
3) LEB : 98
4) NRSV : 106
5) NET : 113
6) NIV : 135
7) CSB : 148
8) CEB : 202
9) NLT : 206

 

Again, the views of Tyndale and Luther are reasonable guidelines for us today. You are obsessive regarding the use of inclusive language; and quite frankly, your understanding is skewed and absolutely false in this realm.

 

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about and you have forgotten all that has been presented to you in countless threads over the years here. Or have you intentionally 'forgotten'?

 

That is if they didn't want any improvements, when many translations twenty years or more of age are revised.

 

I can tell that you wouldn't be in favor of revisions since you never revise your posts.

The English language, like all languages change over time. Even grammar needs to be reviewed to make things more understandable. Those against improvements need to improve.

Permit me to quote from the NET Bible regarding updates/revisions:

"Additional research, additional discoveries of new manuscripts, or archaeological discoveries that shed additional light on first century history and culture, also contribute to the need for revision. Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of users will also result in frequent revision of the notes accompanying the NET Bible. Thus the production of the NET Bible is not a one-time undertaking to be completed and put aside, but an ongoing project with planned improvement and revision.

Nevertheless, with the completion of the whole Bible, revisions to the translation itself will occur in five-year increments, allowing readers to memorize passages with at least a measure of durability." (Preface xv)

 

A fairly literate English speaker would understand most of the second Wycliffe Bible. That's more than half a millennium ago. The text would be puzzling in a number of places, but generally speaking one would be able to understand the message. However, it would be wise to have the language of a translation to be in the vernacular of the people. That's what John Purvey, Martin Luther, William Tyndale and others had been saying with vigor. It still applies in this age. It makes sense and it edifies the reader. The Lord would approve.