Featured 'How Gender Neutral Bible Translations Endanger Christian Marriage

Thank you! Here's a lengthy article by this guy that gives further insight into his perspectives:

Louis Markos: If you think rap videos are the greatest source of insults and slander, then you obviously have not read Calvin’s Institutes

"as an avid supporter of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, I have always harbored mixed feelings about the divided state of the Body of Christ....Nearly all believers...view the members of their own churches (or denominations) as various and diverse members of a single Body of Christ. What we have yet to learn is how to see the denominations themselves as members that can and must work together to fulfill the Great Commission."

"the Charismatics...they alone bring to Christianity a perspective and a ministry only partly developed by the Universal Church before Schisms and Reformations set in....the more rationalistic and masculine branches of the Body of Christ [are] becoming receptive to the more intuitive, feminine message of the...Charismatic branch."

"the Charismatics...being grafted into the Church tree will render it both stronger and more resilient....the Charismatic movement [has]... its own apostolic forebear....[who] often showed a faith and a courage that surpassed that of the Twelve. I speak specifically of Mary Magdalene"

"there was a down side to Paul, the same we find in the Protestant Church....[he] often lashed out in a particularly unloving spirit whenever he felt that his fellow Christians were not staying true to his program. And that darker side of his legacy has persisted as well during the last five hundred years of Protestantism."

"the Roman Catholic Church has been the church that has most fully engaged the world around her. While Orthodoxy withdraws and Protestantism divides, The Catholic Church wrestles and grapples and gets her hands dirty. She makes mistakes (lots of them) but presses on nevertheless—ever struggling and yet ever maintaining her integrity and identity."

Orthodox Christians...were first cut off from the West by the conquering Muslim militias, eventually to be incarcerated in their own countries by the Turks or Soviets....We need their acceptance and celebration of mystery...their rich liturgical theology...their incarnational iconography."

"the Orthodox learned to bond together and to guard fiercely their identity and their culture...just as the Black Church in America functioned as both the spiritual and political center of Black resistance to oppression"

"None of us knows (or can know) what would have happened had the Orthodox and Catholics not split in the 11th century. Nor what would be if the Protestants and Catholics had remained together in the 16th century. But if we let go of such unanswerable questions and instead press forward so that we may all be one, then there is one thing we can know: God will smile."

 

Try re-working your math. It's 36 years. "Or so" could be stretched to 29, not 36 years.

As you know, the ESV has at least 30% more inclusive language than the 1984 NIV. But the 1969 Modern Language Bible, formerly known as the New Berkeley Version, used even more gender accurate language. (GAL = IL) That's more than half a century ago. You're behind the times.

 

The OP sure is an attention grabber, or click bait. Strange that the OP poster didn't offer any evidence from any text demonstrating that Christian marriages are endangered because of gender-specific Bible translations. One would think that would be the first order of priority. But after all, the OP reads like the Onion, what would you expect?

 

Attributing "evil" motives to those seeking to clarify the contextual message (i.e. brothers referring to our siblings in Christ of both genders) by rendering the word so as to address both genders is not a corruption of the text. Rather than the whole sale rejection of the effort, lets consider appropriate translation choices for say the ten most objectionable renderings in say the NIV or NLT or CSB. I believe sometimes the context actually points to males only, but for the most part, the group in view is comprised of believers, and better renderings can be found to clarify the actual intended message

New King James Version
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

One way to present the message is to change the Greek Singular Male words (in Red above) to inclusive words. Anyone rather than any man, and rephrasing the last part with "I will come in, and we will dine together." Alternately "that person" could be used (I will come in to that person...).

 

I find it interesting that many besides just me have found issues with new Niv in regards to Inclusive gender!

 

How many have gone though to saying not blessed is the man, but blessed is person?

 

Have to also question though if some are trying to bring in a subtle fashion belief that both men and women called to pastor and teach, or trying to not see Jesus as much in the OT passages as used to be!

 

Christian Standard Bible
Blessed is the person the Lord will never charge with sin.

NET Bible
blessed is the one against whom the Lord will never count sin."

 

Why don't you read the very things you quote? I said for you to prove from the texts of the NLT and CSB that they promote :
1) Women as pastors
2) A blurring of sexual roles
3) Women, instead of men, as leaders in the home

 

Some of the NIV information uses the term "gender-neutral" is a positive way, though I think Mounce considered it more negatively (as in, "This kind of translation seeks to neutralize or eliminate gender-specific references as much as possible. “Parent” would be used instead of “father,” “ancestor” for “forefather,” “child” for “son,” and “person” for “man” without regard for the actual referent.).

 

The simple thing for you to do is to cite the passages where the NLT and CSB do these terrible things as I have said before. In post #8 i asked you :"Does the NLT and CSB do these dastardly things?" In post #14 you said they do.

It's put up or shut up time for you once more Y-1. If you can't furnish texts from the NLT and CSB that they promote:
1) Women as pastors and elders
2) A blurring of sexual roles
3) Women, instead of men, as leaders in the home

You will be considered merely a rumor-monger. Always asserting reckless claims --never citing facts. The facts need to be quotations from the actual texts of the NLT and CSB.

 

We've all seen at least two dozen posts of this nature.

Could you guys take this to Private Messaging, please?

It's clear that you're never going to stop asking Yeshua1 to come up with examples. Equally clear is that Yeshua1 is never going to supply you with examples.

 

We’re all old men (well many of us are men and most of us are old).
We’re fixed in our grammar.
But the younger ones have been raised to follow different rules.

Like, yeah, ya know!
Trying to teach them about sin is hard enough but when you’ve got gender issues complicating matters, it’s even harder.

Personally I find gender-inclusive wording (and it’s related footnotes) a bit distracting.
However one of the reasons we have new translations is to reach out to new generations of Christians, or those who are seeking God.

Any who translates recognizes that a pure translation is impossible.
Compromise is inevitable. Choices have to be made.

Rather than fuss over these decisions, one should learn to recognize where they occur and understand why the translators chose to word it in that manner.

It (usually) is not a manner of being right or wrong, but a decision based upon translation choices.

I’ve written this more than a few times. Everyone should read the PREFACE of their Bible to understand some of the built in choices the translation team was programmed to make.

You don’t have to like the differences in translation, but certainly you should understand them.

Rob

 

That's all fine and well Rob regarding inclusive language in various Bible translations. What I am concerned with is the fact that false accusations are allowed to stand. It's not a matter of opinion. Either it is in the text or not. If not, then the person making the false claims should confess their sin and shut up thereafter.

Regarding Prefaces in Bible translations : I don't believe that many of these prefaces live up to what they state. Some do, such as the NLT,NIV and NET.

 

Did the SBC, Committee on Guidelines between men and women in scriptures agree with you or me regarding Niv 2011?

 

The Esv and Nas also do!

 

The NASB, for the most part did. The ESV, no. The preface is contradictory. One part is honest in what the translation is about another part is flatly wrong. I will provide the examples a bit later. Whereas you never provide examples from the very text of the translations you criticize. In a short time I will not cite a text from Scripture, but from the text of the preface. But wait, if you have the text in front of you, find what I have claimed.