'How Gender Neutral Bible Translations Endanger Christian Marriage

[Jerome]

Interesting article.
How Gender-Neutral Bible Translations Endanger Christian Marriage - The Imaginative Conservative

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."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Does anybody deny that when the word “man” is used in the Bible, that sometimes it means both men and women?

Why not translate it as such then?

When a translation fails to communicate meaning can it still be called a translation?

Rob

Where the Holy Spirit means to state 'men and women,' He is quite capable of doing so (eg. Acts 8:12). Where He wishes to state 'brothers and sisters' He is also able to do that (eg. Matthew 12:50; James 2:15). But that is not really the point. For hundreds of years, it was understood that 'men' included 'women,' and 'brothers' could be both male and female. When the 1984 NIV was launched, nobody thought these things strange. What has caused the change in the last 20 years or so? Militant feminism, that's what. The word of God has been changed to suit the tastes of people who have no interest in the Bible but only in imposing their views on others.

And now we have people announcing that their 'preferred pronoun' is 'they.' And right on cue, we have the NRSV and the 2011 NIV changing what the Holy Spirit has made singular into plurals We are steadily surrendering to feminism and transgenderism. If you've read George Orwell's 1984, you will know that Big Brother made controlling the language a great priority. Well so do the LBGTQWERTY brigade, and their 'useful idiots' are the Bible translators.

The only thing that could make me KJV-only is if all the modern translations became Gender neutral. That possibility seems less unlikely every day.

 

[Rippon2]

When the 1984 NIV was launched, nobody thought these things strange. What has caused the change in the last 20 years or so?

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.

 

[Rippon2]

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?

 

[rsr]

From the article cited in the OP:

It is only, I would argue, because the message has found a newly-minted language through which to express and incarnate itself that it has gained such a firm foothold within the church. I refer to an artificially-constructed, as opposed to naturally evolved, language that its proponents call “gender-inclusive” or “gender-accurate,” but which is really “gender-neutral.”

What, exactly, is "artificially-constructed" vs. "naturally evolved"?

I am, at heart, a prescriptive grammarian, i.e., I follow the rules that were set by teachers of English in the 1800s and early 1900s. Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Don't split your infinitives.Subject and verb must agree in number. Watch your subjunctives so that you don't mismatch number. "Hopefully" is not an interjection; it is an adverb. If you use a gerund, be sure to use a possessive. Don't mismatch your subjectives and nominatives: "This is he," not "This is him." And for the sake of all that is holy, do not use they as a singular.

I still believe all of those things. I write most of those things (I think splitting an infinitive and ending a sentence with a preposition are OK, because I realize English is not Latin.) I speak most of them, though I am not as careful in verbalizing as I am in writing.

But I know that all of these things are "artificial." In particular, most are based on teachers from the past who let the dead hand of Latin, in particular, impose its will upon English. This is especially true of things like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions. And it is true of using they as a singular, which Shakespeare did. And, God forbid, should anyone refer to the Holy Spirit as it?

Sure, it's uncomfortable for people like myself to cast aside the old axiom that the masculine gender pronouns apply to all sexes. But I've figured out how to get around it because, for better or for worse, this is what English is today. You can bemoan the change, but there it is. Would you not rather change a pronoun or say "brothers and sisters" than to leave the impression that one sex is not being addressed? Christians may venerate the past, but they can't live in it.

But, you say, these changes have been forced upon us. We didn't agree to any of these changes. They are unnatural. Maybe so. Every grammarian knows that like is a preposition and as is a conjunction. But it became moot 66 years ago when Winston cigarettes weighed in. "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." So much for grammarians.

Changes in grammar may be slowly evolving, or they may be sudden. The question should be: "Do these changes reach a level that translators should be making changes accurately to reflect (not split infinitive there!) the message to the people reading the translation?" If so, change translation. If not, forget it.

 

[Van]

I found this description -- artificially-constructed -- to be intriguing and to hold a lot of truth. We are not talking about a "natural evolution" in our language so much as an all out war that has been waged against our language as being too "male-oriented" (for lack of a better term).

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...).

 

[Yeshua1]

So the CSB and NLT both support :

1) Women as elders and pastors
2) A blurring of sexual roles
3) Women, instead of men as leaders in the home

You have never proven any of these and other nefarious things by citing anything in the text of the NIV. Now it's time to prove from the texts of the NLT and CSB that they promote the above.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

The words words man, men, male, brother, his, him, are all gender renderings. The words woman, women, female, sister, her, hers are also "gender renderings." All versions have all of these words in their texts.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

From the article cited in the OP:



What, exactly, is "artificially-constructed" vs. "naturally evolved"?

I am, at heart, a prescriptive grammarian, i.e., I follow the rules that were set by teachers of English in the 1800s and early 1900s. Don't end a sentence with a preposition. Don't split your infinitives.Subject and verb must agree in number. Watch your subjunctives so that you don't mismatch number. "Hopefully" is not an interjection; it is an adverb. If you use a gerund, be sure to use a possessive. Don't mismatch your subjectives and nominatives: "This is he," not "This is him." And for the sake of all that is holy, do not use they as a singular.

I still believe all of those things. I write most of those things (I think splitting an infinitive and ending a sentence with a preposition are OK, because I realize English is not Latin.) I speak most of them, though I am not as careful in verbalizing as I am in writing.

But I know that all of these things are "artificial." In particular, most are based on teachers from the past who let the dead hand of Latin, in particular, impose its will upon English. This is especially true of things like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with prepositions. And it is true of using they as a singular, which Shakespeare did. And, God forbid, should anyone refer to the Holy Spirit as it?

Sure, it's uncomfortable for people like myself to cast aside the old axiom that the masculine gender pronouns apply to all sexes. But I've figured out how to get around it because, for better or for worse, this is what English is today. You can bemoan the change, but there it is. Would you not rather change a pronoun or say "brothers and sisters" than to leave the impression that one sex is not being addressed? Christians may venerate the past, but they can't live in it.

But, you say, these changes have been forced upon us. We didn't agree to any of these changes. They are unnatural. Maybe so. Every grammarian knows that like is a preposition and as is a conjunction. But it became moot 66 years ago when Winston cigarettes weighed in. "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." So much for grammarians.

Changes in grammar may be slowly evolving, or they may be sudden. The question should be: "Do these changes reach a level that translators should be making changes accurately to reflect (not split infinitive there!) the message to the people reading the translation?" If so, change translation. If not, forget it.

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!

 

[Van]

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

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."

 

[Rippon2]

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

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

 

[rlvaughn]

The term 'gender-neutral' is so lame. One would think that it refers to everyone as an asexual being. But of course there is no such absurdity going on at all. It is an imaginary construct due to idleness.

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.).

plural/gender-neutral (they, them, one, themselves, etc.)
Collins Report on Gender Language in English

The gender-neutral pronoun ‟they” (‟them”/‟their”)...
Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation

If I were the English language dictator, I would decree that we resurrect the second-person number distinctions from the Elizabethan period, bring the archaic word “unto” back into circulation so that I could more effectively translate the Greek preposition eis, and create a gender-neutral third-person pronoun that could refer to human beings.
We Still Don’t Get It: Evangelicals and Bible Translation Fifty Years After James Barr, by Douglas J. Moo

 

[Rippon2]

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

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

 

[Deacon]

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

 

[Rippon2]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The Esv and Nas also do!

 

[Rippon2]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

Just read what I wrote, there's a good chap. The first I heard about the matter was when I read this Problems with Inclusive Language Translations of the Bible sometime after it was writtn in 1997.

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.

I never heard of the New Berkeley Version in my life.
I am not a particular fan of the ESV, but at least it doesn't change the word of God constantly from singular to plural as the 2011 NIV does.