Featured Challenging traditional Translation choices.

You're silly. All I said was your his/her construction is awkward.

 

I come down hard on those that go in for eisegesis.

 

The above is from my post #15.

 

The above is from my post number 30 which deals with 1 Cor. 11:3.

 

With regard to your 'translations' they are in violation of every kind of biblical fidelity.

Since you are in favor of the singular form then you would have no issue with the NIV rendering of James 1:8
"Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do."

 

It sounds like you are totally out of the loop. You sincerely don't know about the singular 'they' though you use it often. I will quote from a portion of the NIV preface.

"In recognition of this shift in language and in an effort to translate into the 'common' English that people are actually using, this revision of the NIV generally uses other constructions when the biblical text is plainly addressed to men and women equally. The reader will frequently encounter a 'they,' 'them' or 'their' to express a generic singular idea. Thus, for instance, Mark 8:36 reads: 'What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?' This generic use of the 'indefinite' or 'singular' 'they/them/their' has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, 'anyone' or 'everyone' or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns."

 

It can operate as a singular pronoun as 'they' and 'them' do as well.

Tell me specifically what you object to in that snippet from the NIV preface. Or do you agree with it? It's hard to tell because your language is confusing.

 

No, as I have said before, the he/she and his/her construction is awkward. It is getting as obsolete as the dodo bird.
Here are some better alternatives to your rendering of Mark 8:36 :

Robert Mounce : "After all, what good would it be to gain the whole world if, in the bargain, you had to forfeit your own life?"
KNT : "After all, what use is it to win the world and lose your own life?"
NLT : "And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?"
NIV : "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?"

 

You mean you think it was as clear as crystal. Saying "My post was crystal" is as silly as saying "It was glass."

 

In the NET Bible notes it has a repeated refrain of something to the effect that the Greek translated directly would be awkward English. The Greek has to yield to the English. Martin Luther said the same thing about the Greek being subservient to the German language.

In Acts 8:27a it says "So he got up and went." The NET note says :
Grk "So getting up he went." The aorist participle (anastas) has been translated as a finite verb due to requirements of contemporary English style.

D.A. Carson wrote an article called The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. Here is a significant snippet:
"How often, for example, have I taken second-year Greek students aside and explained at length how rarely a Greek participle should be rendered by an English participle, how many of the Greek connectives must find no formal equivalent in a specific English word but survive in the flow of the English sentence, and so forth."

 

This is why translation work by amateurs and those such as myself who are no longer cognitively up to those more recently schooled, MUST seek the wisdom of and humbly submit to those more recently schooled in the languages.

I may push back at times, but will, when shown, dust off my shovel and dig deep to root out arrogance and not be jealous to contend out puffery.

I do not like the trend towards a gender neutral Bible translation. It just seems to place responsibility of the men being in the the very front lines of the warfare with the enemy of truth. If anything, in my opinion, men need to be the first to hold forth the word of truth. The men need to be acknowledging the Godliness of women, but also be stronger so as to be the example.

To me the gender neutral approach does not lift women, it allows the men to have an excuse for their own lack of standing in full armor hold forth the Word of God as the final authority.

 

Oh look:

Van in 'Flaws of the KJV' thread: "When a person changes 'deeply flawed' to 'deep flaws' and then does not fess up, they are wrong."

And just today:

Van: "What are some of the 'other reasons' to admit a person with Covid but not 'for Covid?' A protocol? If someone says they have shortness of breath, many hospitals would..."