Gender language

[McCree79]

I am probably being paranoid, but this article raised some flags for me. Mostly because Mounce's article is basically bookended by these two statements. Is Mounce leaving it open that the NIV is open to adopting the newly defined, ever expanding, gender language of the world?

"Since the issue of gender language is front and center these days, let’s be sure we are using the words properly; ....

This is one of the reasons why the CBT was originally formed with the mandate to meet every year and keep the NIV up-to-date with current English and biblical scholarship. We are the only translation team to do so; and while it means your favorite verse may get changed, it also means that your favorite verse will be kept current with the English spoken around the world."


Gender Language in Translation | billmounce.com


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

There is just no good reason to use gender neutral language in scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am probably being paranoid, but this article raised some flags for me. Mostly because Mounce's article is basically bookended by these two statements. Is Mounce living it open that the NIV is opening to adopting the newly defined, ever expanding, gender language of the world?

"Since the issue of gender language is front and center these days, let’s be sure we are using the words properly; ....

This is one of the reasons why the CBT was originally formed with the mandate to meet every year and keep the NIV up-to-date with current English and biblical scholarship. We are the only translation team to do so; and while it means your favorite verse may get changed, it also means that your favorite verse will be kept current with the English spoken around the world."


Gender Language in Translation | billmounce.com


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Reading between the lines" We will adapt scripture to accommodate current cultural norms when necessary"

 

[Shoostie]

There are social engineers who manipulate the language to manipulate our thinking. That's how sodomites become homosexuals and then "gay" (merry) to promote a more accepting view of homosexuals

Engineers have been changing the biblical Christ Jesus to judaized Messiah Yeshua, to promote zionism.

Bill Mounce pretends "gender neutral" language is about keeping up with the language. But, it's to promote feminism. The Bible teaches patriarchy, watered down by most Baptists to "complimentarianism", but rejected by the left. Mounce wants women to be pastors, therefor he changes the NIV to promote that thinking. He's trying to scrub the Bible of patriarchy, among other things.

It's arglebargle to say the Bible needs to be updated every year because of changing language. People mostly keep the same vocabulary all of their lives. If you really are changing the NIV for those coming of age in 2019, then you've abandoned all the older generations. But, that's not what's going on here. This is the Boiling Frog principle, change the Bible too quickly and people will be shocked into rejecting your changes. Change it slowly, and people will be use to it and won't run away.

 

[John of Japan]

In this debate Mounce is on the side of D. A. Carson who wrote The Inclusive Language Debate in 1998. The other side is represented by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem in The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (2000).

What bothers me about this article by Mounce is that he seems to define gender neutral and gender inclusive in much the same way, or at least in a confusing way. He has changing "father" to "parent" as an illustration in his explanation for both of these.

His "gender accurate" term I read to mean, "our way in the NIV, which is the right way." In particular I disagree with his making adelfos "brother and sister," since that is reading modern conventions back into the text.

 

[robycop3]

There are social engineers who manipulate the language to manipulate our thinking. That's how sodomites become homosexuals and then "gay" (merry) to promote a more accepting view of homosexuals

Engineers have been changing the biblical Christ Jesus to judaized Messiah Yeshua, to promote zionism.

Bill Mounce pretends "gender neutral" language is about keeping up with the language. But, it's to promote feminism. The Bible teaches patriarchy, watered down by most Baptists to "complimentarianism", but rejected by the left. Mounce wants women to be pastors, therefor he changes the NIV to promote that thinking. He's trying to scrub the Bible of patriarchy, among other things.

It's arglebargle to say the Bible needs to be updated every year because of changing language. People mostly keep the same vocabulary all of their lives. If you really are changing the NIV for those coming of age in 2019, then you've abandoned all the older generations. But, that's not what's going on here. This is the Boiling Frog principle, change the Bible too quickly and people will be shocked into rejecting your changes. Change it slowly, and people will be use to it and won't run away.

Actually, the meaning of "sodomite" had changed before "homosexual" was coined in 1892. A sodomite became: (a.) a citizen of Sodom, or (b.) a practicioner of a certain sex act, performed by both homo & hetero couples. It was illegal for awhile, til enforcing such a law became impossible with the advent of "right to privacy".

"Gay" first broke outta homosexual slang just after WW2, but it still also means "happy, light-hearted". CONTEXT is everything in choosing the meaning for a given usage.

But I agree with your view of Mounce's article.

 

[Rippon2]

In this debate Mounce is on the side of D. A. Carson who wrote The Inclusive Language Debate in 1998. The other side is represented by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem in The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (2000).

What bothers me about this article by Mounce is that he seems to define gender neutral and gender inclusive in much the same way, or at least in a confusing way. He has changing "father" to "parent" as an illustration in his explanation for both of these.

John MacArthur, in his commentaries, has used the words 'parent' or 'parents' many times when the main text he has used has 'father' or 'fathers.' JM is as biblically conservative as it gets. So the whole thing has been blown up way out of proportion.

 

[Rippon2]

His "gender accurate" term I read to mean, "our way in the NIV, which is the right way." In particular I disagree with his making adelfos "brother and sister," since that is reading modern conventions back into the text.

From the ESV "Or brothers or sisters. The Greek word adelhoi (translated 'brothers') refers siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God's family, the church."

I used to have the specific count memorized, I think the ESV, in its footnotes pointed the above out 131 times in the New Testament.

Both genders united in the Body of Christ can legitimately be called brothers and sisters, just as pastors call them in their sermons. It is a convention that is understandable and quite appropriate.

 

[alexander284]

In this debate Mounce is on the side of D. A. Carson who wrote The Inclusive Language Debate in 1998. The other side is represented by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem in The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (2000).

What bothers me about this article by Mounce is that he seems to define gender neutral and gender inclusive in much the same way, or at least in a confusing way. He has changing "father" to "parent" as an illustration in his explanation for both of these.

His "gender accurate" term I read to mean, "our way in the NIV, which is the right way." In particular I disagree with his making adelfos "brother and sister," since that is reading modern conventions back into the text.

I'm right there with you, brother!

 

[Just_Ahead]

... the whole thing has been blown up way out of proportion.

I agree. Time for another cup of tea.

 

[Rippon2]

John MacArthur, in his commentaries, has used the words 'parent' or 'parents' many times when the main text he has used has 'father' or 'fathers.' JM is as biblically conservative as it gets. So the whole thing has been blown up way out of proportion.

The word 'parents' is mentioned in the New Testament translations:
Mounce and LEB : 21
ESV and CSB : 22
NIV :23
NRSV : 26
NET and CEB : 33
NLT 34

 

[Yeshua1]

I am probably being paranoid, but this article raised some flags for me. Mostly because Mounce's article is basically bookended by these two statements. Is Mounce leaving it open that the NIV is open to adopting the newly defined, ever expanding, gender language of the world?

"Since the issue of gender language is front and center these days, let’s be sure we are using the words properly; ....

This is one of the reasons why the CBT was originally formed with the mandate to meet every year and keep the NIV up-to-date with current English and biblical scholarship. We are the only translation team to do so; and while it means your favorite verse may get changed, it also means that your favorite verse will be kept current with the English spoken around the world."


Gender Language in Translation | billmounce.com


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Translation, we will at times have to give into current cultural takes on what once held to be no in the Bible, have to adapt to changing norms on sex and genders!

 

[Yeshua1]

In this debate Mounce is on the side of D. A. Carson who wrote The Inclusive Language Debate in 1998. The other side is represented by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem in The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (2000).

What bothers me about this article by Mounce is that he seems to define gender neutral and gender inclusive in much the same way, or at least in a confusing way. He has changing "father" to "parent" as an illustration in his explanation for both of these.

His "gender accurate" term I read to mean, "our way in the NIV, which is the right way." In particular I disagree with his making adelfos "brother and sister," since that is reading modern conventions back into the text.

Justas we now have more "gay: accepting translations, we will get to point when essentially all roles and positions will be equal among male and female in churches and in scriptures!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. Time for another cup of tea.

The ultimate goal is to take away male headship/leadership positions in home and church though!

 

[Rippon2]

Translation, we will at times have to give into current cultural takes on what once held to be no in the Bible, have to adapt to changing norms on sex and genders!

The above is a tabloid post. Not the truth. Just pandering.

 

[Rippon2]

Justas we now have more "gay: accepting translations,

I can think of just one, a Roman Catholic Bible. The name escapes me at the moment. There aren't anymore to my knowledge. But you put it in the plural. Do you have some insider knowledge, or just blowing smoke?

we will get to point when essentially all roles and positions will be equal among male and female in churches and in scriptures!

Biblegateway has dozens of English translations. None have veered off in that directio

 

[Yeshua1]

I can think of just one, a Roman Catholic Bible. The name escapes me at the moment. There aren't anymore to my knowledge. But you put it in the plural. Do you have some insider knowledge, or just blowing smoke?

Biblegateway has dozens of English translations. None have veered off in that directio

Queen James bible, and just saying that we will one day get to that point with certain versions!

 

[Yeshua1]

The above is a tabloid post. Not the truth. Just pandering.

Niv 2005 was addressing Evangelical feminism, and that was also focus of the 21011, as wanted to try to eliminate "male Parochial bias" so called in bible!

 

[Rippon2]

Queen James bible, and just saying that we will one day get to that point with certain versions!

You put it in the plural form in the present day. Perhaps you were stretching it yet once again.

 

[Rippon2]

Niv 2005 was addressing Evangelical feminism, and that was also focus of the 21011, as wanted to try to eliminate "male Parochial bias" so called in bible!

You have the desire to be a fortune teller. The year 21011 is yet future.

You need to demonstrate facts, specifics. Go to the text of translations to prove your contentions.