Featured 'How Gender Neutral Bible Translations Endanger Christian Marriage

Some here have totally denied that was happening, but the move towards inclusive language translations have moved the standards in some degree on how we now tend to view what scriptures support on things like marriage and authority roles within the church and family!

 

Took a while but I found the mind reading and strawman portion of the argument:

Though proponents of the NRSV, CEV, NLT, CEB, and the new NIV do not always express it this way, behind their insistence on removing inclusive “he” and “man” lies the unstated claim that if Jesus and Luke and John and Paul were living today, they would alter their language to accommodate our postmodern, deconstructed view of gender.

Seriously, if you have to resort to arguing against "the unstated claim" of something, you are really grasping at straws. Rest of article promptly falls apart. (It was on its way well before the above quoted portion...)

BTW, an aptly named website--"The Imaginative Conservative"

 

That point is valid though, as it seems a reason why translation were done were to get away from so much of that "Masculine" nature of the scriptures, at least as some have seen it!

 

Be honest. You are only speaking of the NIV. And of course your assertions are total rubbish.

 

It's interesting that the CSB is not mentioned though it uses almost the same amount of inclusive language as the NIV.

 

Gender-neutral Bible translations do not exist; at least in the top twenty versions. But why not go to the extremities to prove a point. Let's see how many straw men you can erect and then tear down.

 

Does the NLT and CSB do those dastardly things?

 

That's because the 'imaginative' article was written six years ago.

 

Does anybody deny that when the word “man” is used in the Bible, that sometimes it means both men and women?

Why not translate it as such then?

When a translation fails to communicate meaning can it still be called a translation?

Rob

 

Just suggesting that we are moving in that direction, and what is not thought possible now might be in future!

 

How many gender rendering versions in top 20?

 

Why translate what is already commonly known and accepted?

 

Yep, but theNiv 2011 is most popular translation that does such!

 

In your post #11, you said "Just suggesting that we are moving in that direction." Let's deal specifically with the NIV, CSB and NLT. So there is some kind of movement , but you really can't point to anything of substance in the text itself. Movement but no evidence. It doesn't exist, but it does exist. You're back to your nonsense claims once more. You insist that sinister things are in these translations, but you are not able to point out anything in the text to prove your allegations. Got it.

 

So the CSB and NLT both support :

1) Women as elders and pastors
2) A blurring of sexual roles
3) Women, instead of men as leaders in the home

You have never proven any of these and other nefarious things by citing anything in the text of the NIV. Now it's time to prove from the texts of the NLT and CSB that they promote the above.

 

The words words man, men, male, brother, his, him, are all gender renderings. The words woman, women, female, sister, her, hers are also "gender renderings." All versions have all of these words in their texts.

 

I found this description -- artificially-constructed -- to be intriguing and to hold a lot of truth. We are not talking about a "natural evolution" in our language so much as an all out war that has been waged against our language as being too "male-oriented" (for lack of a better term).

 

It is intriguing that you find it intriguing. The term 'gender-neutral' is so lame. One would think that it refers to everyone as an asexual being. But of course there is no such absurdity going on at all. It is an imaginary construct due to idleness.

 

It is intriguing that you find it intriguing that I find it intriguing. However, your reply focuses on terminology that I did not focus on. What I mentioned was "artificially constructed," which I think is fairly fitting of what is not an evolution of language over a long period of time, but an assault on language to try to make people write and talk a certain way (which has worked pretty well, I might add).

Don't worry, I'm not going to say anything about your NIV2011; I leave that eternal argument to you and your friend Yeshua1.