-
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!
'How Gender Neutral Bible Translations Endanger Christian Marriage
- Thread starter Martin Marprelate
- Start date
What he's saying, quite correctly IMO, is that Gender neutral language has not developed naturally over some dozens of years, but has been brought in by a deliberate policy.
For the rest, if we were talking about any other book but the Bible, I would reluctantly agree with you. I wince every time I hear a split infinitive, but such things are now, alas, ubiquitous and I just need to get over it, I suppose.
But we are not talking about any other book; we are talking about the very word of God, and we do not have the right to add to His word (Proverbs 30:5-6), nor to tamper with it by turning singulars into plurals. Moreover, as I have shown before, there are certain places where doing so obscures possible references to the Lord Jesus Christ. Since He is the primary subject of the Bible, Old and New Testaments (e.g. John 5:39), this is a very serious thing to do.
We should tremble at the word of God (Isaiah 66:2), not imagine that we can change it at will to follow the whims and fashions of fallen mankind
2 best translations would still be the Nas and the Nkjv, but it looks like my beloved Nas in the 2020 edition has gone to that ole inclusive language to some degree!
From my wonderful book, The Challenge Of Bible Translation, Mark L. Strauss has a good chapter. I'll cite a snip for the benefit of MM.
"To argue that 'he' is the correct translation while other renderings (such as plurals for singulars, second person for third, singular 'they' for singular 'he,' or passive constructions) are distortions of the text is simplistic and naive." (p.130)
"To argue that 'he' is the correct translation while other renderings (such as plurals for singulars, second person for third, singular 'they' for singular 'he,' or passive constructions) are distortions of the text is simplistic and naive." (p.130)
Is there ever a valid reason to have the mandates of a cultural that is on the whole against God and his ways become the basis to determine what is the appropitae translation policy?
So missing Jesus in Psalm 8 is a good thing?
I have covered that issue time and again with you. Go look in the archives since your gray matter is on the wane. I will say that since 75% of Conservative Bible scholars agree with my stance, you need to do more investigation. Even Charles Spurgeon is in my camp, along with MacArthur, D,A.Carson and many more.
The Holy Spirit Himself testified to Jesus there, so will take His view!
Yours as in you are the editor, or yours as in you own it?
The general editors are : Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss and Steven M. Voth.
Are you still reading that rubbish?
Are you still beating your wife?
The following is from Douglas Moo, who is the chairman of the CBT team for the NIV :
"....let me begin with our motivation since some have called this into question. Our decisions about gender were were part and parcel of our single overall agenda -- to put God's Word accurately into modern English. No other agenda informed our gender decisions. In every case our procedure was a simple and straightforward one : (1) decide whether the original text was inclusive (men and women included) or exclusive (men only or women only); (2) decide on the English words that would clearly communicate that meaning." (p.85)
"....the CBT adopted a set of guidelines that we applied during the NIV update process. These guidelines arise not from some ideological agenda or from personal experience; they are based on solid data. All data, of course, must be interpreted, and the CBT had to look carefully at specific contexts to decide how to apply the findings of the Collins Report.. Our decisions were driven by this research, and our concern was always fidelity t what the original texts were saying. Where those texts indicate an exclusive reference, we used the appropriate modern English exclusive term; where they indicated an exclusive reference, we used the appropriate modern English inclusive term." (pages. 87,88)
Which Bible Translation Should I use? A Comparison of 4 Major Recent Versions
"....let me begin with our motivation since some have called this into question. Our decisions about gender were were part and parcel of our single overall agenda -- to put God's Word accurately into modern English. No other agenda informed our gender decisions. In every case our procedure was a simple and straightforward one : (1) decide whether the original text was inclusive (men and women included) or exclusive (men only or women only); (2) decide on the English words that would clearly communicate that meaning." (p.85)
"....the CBT adopted a set of guidelines that we applied during the NIV update process. These guidelines arise not from some ideological agenda or from personal experience; they are based on solid data. All data, of course, must be interpreted, and the CBT had to look carefully at specific contexts to decide how to apply the findings of the Collins Report.. Our decisions were driven by this research, and our concern was always fidelity t what the original texts were saying. Where those texts indicate an exclusive reference, we used the appropriate modern English exclusive term; where they indicated an exclusive reference, we used the appropriate modern English inclusive term." (pages. 87,88)
Which Bible Translation Should I use? A Comparison of 4 Major Recent Versions
The Southern Baptist Convention has a committee on guidelines between men and women in scriptures?
Huh? Please explain.
That has nothing to do with the Southern Baptist Convention.
His "translation" is quite loose. He has the nagging problem of seeing what's not there.
Just arrived in the mailbox this morning. I’m looking forward to wading through it.
Rob