• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Exercise Common Sense

R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Certain posters make a fuss about inclusive language in the NIV. What a tempest in a teapot.

I will post snips from version A and version B. Note the difference and tell me what the big deal is.
Are the renderings from B just following a feminist agenda --just caving into political correctness? Or,
is B merely making common sense readings in full accord with legitimate translation practices.

The following snips are from the book of Job.

5:17
A : Blessed is the man
B : Blessed is the one.

7:20
A : O watcher of men
B : watcher of mankind

16:11
A : evil men
B : ungodly

17:8
A : Upright men
B : The upright

17:12
A : These men
B : They

18:20
A : Men of the west
B : They of the west

19:14
A : My kinsmen
B : My relatives

21:19
A : God stores up a man's punishment for his sins
B : God stores up their iniquity for their children

21:25
A : Another man
B : Another

29:8
A : the old men
B : the aged

31:2
A : man's lot
B : my portion

35:9
A : Men cry out
B : people cry out

36:8
A : men are
B : they are

37:13
A : to punish men
B : for correction
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon said:
Certain posters make a fuss about inclusive language in the NIV. What a tempest in a teapot.

I will post snips from version A and version B. Note the difference and tell me what the big deal is.
Are the renderings from B just following a feminist agenda --just caving into political correctness? Or,
is B merely making common sense readings in full accord with legitimate translation practices.

The following snips are from the book of Job.

5:17
A : Blessed is the man
B : Blessed is the one.

7:20
A : O watcher of men
B : watcher of mankind

16:11
A : evil men
B : ungodly

17:8
A : Upright men
B : The upright

17:12
A : These men
B : They

18:20
A : Men of the west
B : They of the west

19:14
A : My kinsmen
B : My relatives

21:19
A : God stores up a man's punishment for his sins
B : God stores up their iniquity for their children

21:25
A : Another man
B : Another

29:8
A : the old men
B : the aged

31:2
A : man's lot
B : my portion

35:9
A : Men cry out
B : people cry out

36:8
A : men are
B : they are

37:13
A : to punish men
B : for correction
Click to expand...
Think the 1984 Niv still is a better translation than the revision!
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
Think the 1984 Niv still is a better translation than the revision!
Click to expand...
You don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about. You don't even know what you are responding to.

Look at the portions of verses I gave from the 84 NIV (above --A), and the ESV rendering (below --B) and tell me if you have a problem with the ESV readings.

Just deal with the 84 NIV and ESV. There is no reason to bring up the current NIV when replying to those snips from Psalms.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What does this prove, save that the ESV is better than the NIV? The ESV is more literal in most of those examples, except in Job 21:19 where the Number is singular, not plural.

The problem with Gender Inclusivity does not appear in cases like these.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon said:
You don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about. You don't even know what you are responding to.

Look at the portions of verses I gave from the 84 NIV (above --A), and the ESV rendering (below --B) and tell me if you have a problem with the ESV readings.

Just deal with the 84 NIV and ESV. There is no reason to bring up the current NIV when replying to those snips from Psalms.
Click to expand...
Just support that the Esv ismoreliteral than either versions of the Niv, correct?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
What does this prove, save that the ESV is better than the NIV? The ESV is more literal in most of those examples, except in Job 21:19 where the Number is singular, not plural.

The problem with Gender Inclusivity does not appear in cases like these.
Click to expand...
True, as one can cherry pick passagesto support our case, but gender inclusive renderings as much as new Niv did are hard to support!
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
What does this prove, save that the ESV is better than the NIV? The ESV is more literal in most of those examples,
Click to expand...
All you have done is offer assertions --no proof. Document man. Make your case.
The problem with Gender Inclusivity does not appear in cases like these.
Click to expand...
I fully agree! The rest of inclusive language is just as benign as the examples I set forth. The so-called gender-inclusive controversy is a blown-up non-event.
 
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
True, as one can cherry pick passagesto support our case, but gender inclusive renderings as much as new Niv did are hard to support!
Click to expand...
Focus, focus.You are too scatter-brained. I said to deal with the ESV and 1984 NIV renderings only.
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon said:
All you have done is offer assertions --no proof. Document man. Make your case.
Click to expand...
To make the case fully I would need to be fluent in Hebrew which I am, like you, I think, certainly not. What I did was to compare the passages with my trusty NKJV, which is generally regarded as a 'Formal Equivalence' translation, and not usually known for its Gender Inclusivity:

16:11
A : evil men
B : ungodly
C. ungodly

17:8
A : Upright men
B : The upright
C. Upright men

17:12
A : These men
B : They
C: They

18:20
A : Men of the west
B : They of the west
C: Those in the west

19:14
A : My kinsmen
B : My relatives
C: My relatives
I fully agree! The rest of inclusive language is just as benign as the examples I set forth. The so-called gender-inclusive controversy is a blown-up non-event.
Click to expand...
As I have written before, I believe that Bible translation is a sacred task that calls for humility as well as learning. I have no problem with Psalm 1:1 being translated as 'Blessed is the one.....' instead of 'Blessed is the man.......' (though I see no necessity for it) since the text obviously refers to both genders. But to translate v.2 as 'But their delight.......' instead of 'But his delight......' is to deliberately mistranslate, since the Hebrew is singular, not plural, and we have no license to play fast and loose with the word of God. Also, 'he' and 'his' have been used for both genders since time immemorial.

So I have a principled objection to using the plural for gender inclusivity. I also have a practical objection. There are several portions of Scripture where changing the singular to a plural obscures a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Psalm 24 is an obvious example, but there are others.

Finally, by capitulating to the feminist lobby, you may find that, like Noah's dove, you have no resting place for the sole of your foot. After the gender-inclusive bible will come the transgender bible with abominations like 'ze' and 'zar.' Remember you heard it here first.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon said:
All you have done is offer assertions --no proof. Document man. Make your case.

I fully agree! The rest of inclusive language is just as benign as the examples I set forth. The so-called gender-inclusive controversy is a blown-up non-event.
Click to expand...
The renderings don by the Niv 2011 are [roblematic at times!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
To make the case fully I would need to be fluent in Hebrew which I am, like you, I think, certainly not. What I did was to compare the passages with my trusty NKJV, which is generally regarded as a 'Formal Equivalence' translation, and not usually known for its Gender Inclusivity:

16:11
A : evil men
B : ungodly
C. ungodly

17:8
A : Upright men
B : The upright
C. Upright men

17:12
A : These men
B : They
C: They

18:20
A : Men of the west
B : They of the west
C: Those in the west

19:14
A : My kinsmen
B : My relatives
C: My relatives

As I have written before, I believe that Bible translation is a sacred task that calls for humility as well as learning. I have no problem with Psalm 1:1 being translated as 'Blessed is the one.....' instead of 'Blessed is the man.......' (though I see no necessity for it) since the text obviously refers to both genders. But to translate v.2 as 'But their delight.......' instead of 'But his delight......' is to deliberately mistranslate, since the Hebrew is singular, not plural, and we have no license to play fast and loose with the word of God. Also, 'he' and 'his' have been used for both genders since time immemorial.

So I have a principled objection to using the plural for gender inclusivity. I also have a practical objection. There are several portions of Scripture where changing the singular to a plural obscures a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Psalm 24 is an obvious example, but there are others.

Finally, by capitulating to the feminist lobby, you may find that, like Noah's dove, you have no resting place for the sole of your foot. After the gender-inclusive bible will come the transgender bible with abominations like 'ze' and 'zar.' Remember you heard it here first.
Click to expand...
We already have the Queen James version, so the nxt one will be the Mary to Michael edition!
And dotake exception when New iv seem to trat son of a as not referring to Jesus, more to generic Mankind!
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
McCree79

McCree79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
R

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon said:
5:17
A : Blessed is the man
B : Blessed is the one.

7:20
A : O watcher of men
B : watcher of mankind

21:25
A : Another man
B : Another

29:8
A : the old men
B : the aged

31:2
A : man's lot
B : my portion

35:9
A : Men cry out
B : people cry out

36:8
A : men are
B : they are

37:13
A : to punish men
B : for correction
Click to expand...

MM: You forgot to prove that any of the above renderings in the NIV here were not as literal as the ESV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top