How Many here Like Gender inclusive translations?

[Conan]

"Gender Inclusive" Part 1 - Is the KJV "Gender Inclusive"?

 

[Rippon2]

I like Bible translations to be accurate-as-possible with the languages being translated.

Agreed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed.

The Nkjv and Nas do that fine, the Niv 2011 too much!

 

[Jerome]

I like Bible translations to be accurate-as-possible with the languages being translated.

Agreed.

The Nkjv and Nas do that fine, the Niv 2011 too much!

Oh brother.
There you have it folks.
According to Yeshua1, the NIV 2011 tries too much to be as accurate-as-possible in translation, so best to stick with Nkjv and Nas!

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh brother.
There you have it folks.
According to Yeshua1, the NIV 2011 tries too much to be as accurate-as-possible in translation, so best to stick with Nkjv and Nas!

Nope, just saying that the Nas and Nkjv have the right balance for how inclusive to be!

 

[Rippon2]

Oh brother.
There you have it folks.
According to Yeshua1, the NIV 2011 tries too much to be as accurate-as-possible in translation, so best to stick with Nkjv and Nas!

I couldn't decide whether to merely use the agree button or to push the funny button.

 

[Rippon2]

Nope, just saying that the Nas and Nkjv have the right balance for how inclusive to be!

They are obviously deficient in that regard.

 

[Reformed1689]

"However, even though readers need to know that the original languages were grammatically gendered (and those studying the original languages are aware of this), we believe that the primary purpose of a translation is to communicate the message of the Bible to its readers, and so we believe that translations should be gender-inclusive where appropriate to reflect the inclusive nature of what is being discussed. Thus, use of 'brothers and sisters' is appropriate to reflect a word that in previous translations would have been rendered 'brothers,' if Paul is speaking to a church congregation that includes both men and women." ( taken from Fundamentals Of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, p.187)

This is an over-simplification and the assumption that English readers are just stupid and can't figure out that mankind means all humans etc....

 

[Yeshua1]

They are obviously deficient in that regard.

The 1984 Niv had this right also!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is an over-simplification and the assumption that English readers are just stupid and can't figure out that mankind means all humans etc....

Guess so called Evangelical feminism started to creep on in!

 

[Rippon2]

This is an over-simplification and the assumption that English readers are just stupid and can't figure out that mankind means all humans etc....

Oh, forget it.

 

[Rippon2]

Guess so called Evangelical feminism started to creep on in!

The Factory of Fiction is at it again.

 

[Reformed1689]

Oh, forget it.

I'll take that as you know I am right.

 

[Rippon2]

I'll take that as you know I am right.

You need to make another take, until you get it right.

 

[Reformed1689]

You need to make another take, until you get it right.

That would require you to interact with what I said.

 

[Rippon2]

That would require you to interact with what I said.

Read between the lines.

 

[Reformed1689]

Read between the lines.

There weren't multiple lines so.... Again, I am right unless you explain otherwise.

 

[Rippon2]

There weren't multiple lines so.... Again, I am right unless you explain otherwise.

You're a writer and yet not familiar with the idiom.

 

[Reformed1689]

You're a writer and yet not familiar with the idiom.

Oh I am familiar with the idiom, I'm just not letting you get off that easily.

 

[Rippon2]

Oh I am familiar with the idiom, I'm just not letting you get off that easily.

Well, too bad. Off I go David.