Gender-neutral Versions

[John of Japan]

We can translate to accommodate the understanding of 2,000 years ago, when men dominated women. Or we can translate to accommodate current understanding, when men and women are equals.

If we render "brothers" as "brothers and sisters, we are no longer translating according to authorial intent, but with dynamic/functional equivalence, which weights the rendering towards the modern reader ("reader response" theory). I believe authorial intent--what God actually intended the human author to write--to be the correct way to translate.

I do not know why only brothers would be addressed in scripture, when there were brothers and sisters in the church.

That's very simple. The men were the actual leaders in the 1st century. It was not until the women's suffrage movement of the early 20th century that there was an effort to make women "equal" to men. In reality, that movement and the feminist movement degraded women, because those movements, in their search for so-called equality, actually degraded women by making them "equal" to men. There are so many ways women are different in God's plan, and even superior: encouragers, gentle, nurturers, child-bearers, etc. I would be a total failure in life if I did not have a good, godly wife!

But today, I think we should acknowledge both. We are no longer in the milieu in which women are marginalized, not educated,

My grandmother (early 20th century; actually went to some seminary and was better in Hebrew than my grandfather), mother (1946, Wheaton), and wife are all college graduates. Even earlier there were women's colleges. So I'm not sure what you mean here. In the pioneer days, women stood beside their men and shot at the attackers, helped plow the fields, educated their children at home, etc. etc. I admire them!

treated like possessions, and are generally either married or engaging in prostitution to survive.

This ignores the wonderful single women and widows in Scripture and in modern times who were disciples of Jesus, ran businesses (Lydia), etc. There were then and are now many options open to women other than these that you give.

I'll just point you here to the Colorado Springs guidelines on Bible translation, agreed to by many top evangelical theologians, Bible translators and other scholars: Colorado Springs Guidelines

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not like the masculine singular “men” when the sense is “all humanity”.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This is actually not masculine singular but masculine plural.
Just saying.

 

[Ascetic X]

If we render "brothers" as "brothers and sisters, we are no longer translating according to authorial intent, but with dynamic/functional equivalence, which weights the rendering towards the modern reader ("reader response" theory). I believe authorial intent--what God actually intended the human author to write--to be the correct way to translate.

Authorial practice in addressing only the brothers is no longer relevant today.

That's very simple. The men were the actual leaders in the 1st century. It was not until the women's suffrage movement of the early 20th century that there was an effort to make women "equal" to men. In reality, that movement and the feminist movement degraded women, because those movements, in their search for so-called equality, actually degraded women by making them "equal" to men. There are so many ways women are different in God's plan, and even superior: encouragers, gentle, nurturers, child-bearers, etc. I would be a total failure in life if I did not have a good, godly wife!

Women’s suffrage movement eventually resulted in giving females the ability to be in various professions that were not open to women, except in rare exceptions. A woman lawyer, doctor, university professor, scientist, politician, etc. can perform as well as a man.

My grandmother (early 20th century; actually went to some seminary and was better in Hebrew than my grandfather), mother (1946, Wheaton), and wife are all college graduates. Even earlier there were women's colleges. So I'm not sure what you mean here. In the pioneer days, women stood beside their men and shot at the attackers, helped plow the fields, educated their children at home, etc. etc. I admire them!

I am talking about during the time when the Bible was written. Women were not educated, they were trained to be wives and mothers, with rare exceptions.

This ignores the wonderful single women and widows in Scripture and in modern times who were disciples of Jesus, ran businesses (Lydia), etc. There were then and are now many options open to women other than these that you give.

These were rare exceptions, not the norm during the Bible times. The fact that to survive, women generally had to be married or under the care of a man is a justification, along with political expediency, given for why King David, Solomon and other men had multiple wives and concubines.

 

[Ben1445]

I do not like the masculine singular “men” when the sense is “all humanity”.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

A better rendering of this would be “…who desires everyone to be saved…”

This better rendering may sound more inclusive in modern day English.
In accurate English it is not less inclusive.
Just people who don’t understand that man is equal to mankind and is the same as people, humanity, and every other word that describes the two genders that God created in His image to fill the earth.

It is perfectly acceptable to call a female tiger a tiger even though she is a tigress. This is just the way that the language works.
I don’t know anyone proposing gender equality of naming when is comes to large striped cats.
Is anyone confused by the reading of Scripture in 1 Timothy 2?
Does someone think that God doesn’t want women to be saved?
I think the bigger point is that God is saving people and not animals.
(Sorry if that upsets the animal lovers.) Jesus died for men and not pets.

At some point when we translate, we have to consider the grammar structure and rules of the language. To introduce politics into the translation is to ignore the legitimate structure of translation for silly rules based on what might be offensive.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is a Greek word for 'sister, adelphe, which is used 24 times in the NT. Of those, adelphe is used together with adelphos, 'brother,' seven times (Matt. 12:50; 19:29; Mark 3:35; 10:39; 10:30; Luke 14:26; James 2:15).
So there is no problem with the Biblical writers (or the Holy Spirit) using 'sister. The question is, when they do not do so, do we have the right to change holy writ?
Also, @John of Japan is, of course right in drawing a distinction betwen anthropos and aner. The first has the meaning of 'person' and can therefore be translated as such. The other, as JoJ says, has the meaning of 'male' or 'husband.' So when Peter says, in Acts 2:29, 'andres adelphoi,' he means, 'men and brethren,' not 'fellow Israelites' as the NIV 2011 mistranslates.

But I am more interested in the examples I have given of possible references to the Lord Jesus Christ being removed by the substitution of 'they' or 'them' for 'he' and 'him.' This seems to me to be quite serious.

 

[John of Japan]

Authorial practice in addressing only the brothers is no longer relevant today.

No, the term is "authorial intent," and it is about the inspiration of Scripture. If you believe in verbal plenary inspiration, then you believe that God wrote what He wanted (through human authors) in the original mss of the Word of God.

Women’s suffrage movement eventually resulted in giving females the ability to be in various professions that were not open to women, except in rare exceptions. A woman lawyer, doctor, university professor, scientist, politician, etc. can perform as well as a man.

Right! Except they succeed in different ways than men, sometimes better and sometimes not, because they are different! And I celebrate that difference. But until men can bear children, I'll not agree that they are equal.

I am talking about during the time when the Bible was written. Women were not educated, they were trained to be wives and mothers, with rare exceptions.

Point taken. But personally, I think being a wife and a mother are absolutely awesome things! Men cannot do many of the things in this regard that women can do.

These were rare exceptions, not the norm during the Bible times.

Regardless, women were awesome then and they are awesome now for who they are and what they can do (that men cannot).

The fact that to survive, women generally had to be married or under the care of a man is a justification, along with political expediency, given for why King David, Solomon and other men had multiple wives and concubines.

But the Bible is still the Word of God.

 

[John of Japan]

For anyone who wants to study this issue out more deeply, here are two books:

The Inclusive Debate, by D. A. Carson. This is on the side of gender neutral language, but Carson is a conservative scholar.

The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem. This is on the side of literal translation. The authors are both conservative.

 

[John of Japan]

I just saw my daughter-in-law: fluent in her native language (she's not from here) and English, has studied Greek, has two masters' and a nursing degree. But more than that, she is an awesome wife to my only son, and wonderful mother to my two granddaughters.

It's a sin to elevate her accomplishments over her roles as wife and mother!

 

[Ben1445]

Authorial practice in addressing only the brothers is no longer relevant today.

Women’s suffrage movement eventually resulted in giving females the ability to be in various professions that were not open to women, except in rare exceptions. A woman lawyer, doctor, university professor, scientist, politician, etc. can perform as well as a man.

I am talking about during the time when the Bible was written. Women were not educated, they were trained to be wives and mothers, with rare exceptions.

These were rare exceptions, not the norm during the Bible times. The fact that to survive, women generally had to be married or under the care of a man is a justification, along with political expediency, given for why King David, Solomon and other men had multiple wives and concubines.

I think that you surmise more than you are able to be sure of.
You cannot know how people thought or acted based upon archeology alone.
If everything that is done for the household is credited to the head of the household, how would you expect to know the details?
What does Proverbs 31 describe anyway? She doesn’t sound like she is uneducated.

People are still the same as they were in the beginning. God created everything and the way God made man and woman still applies. None of that do we have the authority to change and expect to say that we are living as God intended.
The rarity that is spoken of is not something that is actually changing. The fact is brought out in this riddle.
What has God never seen, Abraham Lincoln seldom saw, and man today sees every day?

The answer is their equal. There may be a great many who do the things that you say were rare. But if a majority did a mediocre job at their work, you would not expect to hear about it recorded. The commonplace is not worthy of remembrance. You must do something to get into the history books.

At any rate, a translation is only as good as it is faithfully translated. I could use my own rules of translation and end up with a work far different than what was originally intended. What is more important, the pleasing of the reader, or the intent of the author. I want nothing to do with a translation where the translator feels more strongly about what he writes than what he translates from. For me, this applies to any translated work. Whether I’m reading the Iliad or Beowulf or the Bible, the credit for the work still goes to the author and not so much the translators. I have little respect for translations that take liberties with someone else’s works.

 

[Ascetic X]

This better rendering may sound more inclusive in modern day English.
In accurate English it is not less inclusive.
Just people who don’t understand that man is equal to mankind and is the same as people, humanity, and every other word that describes the two genders that God created in His image to fill the earth.



At some point when we translate, we have to consider the grammar structure and rules of the language. To introduce politics into the translation is to ignore the legitimate structure of translation for silly rules based on what might be offensive.

My position has nothing to do with politics.

Including women in a verse whose sense is dealing not with males only, but all humanity, is not a silly rule.

My concern is to communicate the sense of scripture. It is not universally understood that “men’ means “all mankind, both male and female”. So, if the sense of “men” is “everyone”, it is better to translate it such. The letter kills, but the spirit giveth life.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all humanity to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[John of Japan]

My position has nothing to do with politics.

Including women in a verse whose sense is dealing not with males only, but all humanity, is not a silly rule.

My concern is to communicate the sense of scripture. It is not universally understood that “men’ means “all mankind, both male and female”. So, if the sense of “men” is “everyone”, it is better to translate it such. The letter kills, but the spirit giveth life.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all humanity to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Once again this is anthropos, and can by the best linguistics be translated as "persons," including men and women, because it is a plural. I think "humanity" is a mistake, though. That's a singular, and inaccurate.

 

[Ben1445]

My position has nothing to do with politics.

Including women in a verse whose sense is dealing not with males only, but all humanity, is not a silly rule.

My concern is to communicate the sense of scripture. It is not universally understood that “men’ means “all mankind, both male and female”. So, if the sense of “men” is “everyone”, it is better to translate it such. The letter kills, but the spirit giveth life.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all humanity to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Proper grammar does not exclude them.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 5:2
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


Text size and boldness added for emphasis and clarity only. I’m not shouting.

 

[Deacon]

Interesting topic. Here is my objection to gender neutral renderings. It is taking a modern movement (feminism) and inserts it into a document 2000 years or more old. News flash: there were no feminists or "gender equality" in the 1st century!!! This practice is called anachronism, and is unacceptable in any kind of translation, much less Bible translation.

Translations are made to transfer meaning.
If the translation fails to communicate the original meaning, or even misleads readers, it fails as a translation.

Gender neutral fails because it imposes a modern agenda,
However there is a place for a text being gender-sensitive,

How many times does a pastor have to explain that when the text says "men" it includes everyone?

Let the text say what it means, if the passage needs a footnote to broaden the interpretation, so be it.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

Translations are made to transfer meaning.
If the translation fails to communicate the original meaning, or even misleads readers, it fails as a translation.

Gender neutral fails because it imposes a modern agenda,
However there is a place for a text being gender-sensitive,

How many times does a pastor have to explain that when the text says "men" it includes everyone?

Let the text say what it means, if the passage needs a footnote to broaden the interpretation, so be it.

Rob

Every time the original text is the plural of anthropos (ἄνθρωπος) it is possible to translate it as "people." On the hand, aner (ἀνήρ), occurring in 193 verses, should almost always be translated "man" or "husband."

But footnotes are great. I love 'em!

 

[percho]

I guess in a few years we will have to be inclusive of the trans-genders and all the other genders now brewing.

 

[Mikoo]

My position has nothing to do with politics.

Hmmm. Post #23?

Including women in a verse whose sense is dealing not with males only, but all humanity, is not a silly rule.

My concern is to communicate the sense of scripture. It is not universally understood that “men’ means “all mankind, both male and female”. So, if the sense of “men” is “everyone”, it is better to translate it such. The letter kills, but the spirit giveth life.

1 Timothy 2:3,4

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all humanity to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Deacon]

I guess in a few years we will have to be inclusive of the trans-genders and all the other genders now brewing.

No waiting, the Scriptures already accommodate the trans-gender. There's nothing new under the sun.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus says:
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (ESV 2025)

Rob

 

[Ben1445]

No waiting, the Scriptures already accommodate the trans-gender. There's nothing new under the sun.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus says:
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (ESV 2025)

Rob

But nowhere does it say that changed genders. A eunuch has not changed genders like the transgender community defines it.

God created male and female. Eunuch is not a gender.

 

[Ascetic X]

No waiting, the Scriptures already accommodate the trans-gender. There's nothing new under the sun.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus says:
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (ESV 2025)

Rob

I must say, that is a pretty good response to the transgender agenda, at least when it comes to males pretending to be females, and having their reproductive system surgically or chemically destroyed. Well done,sir!

 

[Ascetic X]

But nowhere does it say that changed genders. A eunuch has not changed genders like the transgender community defines it.

God created male and female. Eunuch is not a gender.

Actually, for males pretending to be females, the eunuch is an appropriate analogy. A eunuch is castrated. A male transitioning to fake female is also castrated. Similar to how females trying to become male.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
involving the non-medical removal or injury of external female genitalia, is frequently cited as the female equivalent of castration due to the severe, permanent damage caused.

Androgyne is a non-binary gender identity in which one is simultaneously a man/masculine and a woman/feminine, or in between the two.