Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Childish
-
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 Many here Like Gender inclusive translations?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
I bet you haven't read it.
The main gist would be in Part 6!
The main problem with gender neutral translations is that they are anachronistic.
How so?
The gender neutral custom is recent in history and common to our society. They did not have it in the 1st century Roman Empire or Israel. Therefore, to insert gender neutral language into a Bible translation is to force a modern cultural convention on an ancient document, the Word of God no less. That is anachronistic.
Last edited:
The NET Bible Preface contains a large section devoted to the subject of inclusive language. I'll quote just one paragraph.
"With the NET Bible our concern was to be gender-accurate rather than gender-inclusive, striving for faithfulness to the original biblical texts while at the same time seeking to attain accuracy in terms of current English style. The English language constantly undergoes change. Acceptable conventions for dealing with gender-related language have undergone a great deal of change in the last few decades, and more change in this area will certainly will certainly come in the future. As the conventions of the English language change, new translations and revisions of existing translations will have to take this into account. This is especially important when the goal of the translation (like that of the NET Bible) is faithfulness to the original." (p.xiv)
"With the NET Bible our concern was to be gender-accurate rather than gender-inclusive, striving for faithfulness to the original biblical texts while at the same time seeking to attain accuracy in terms of current English style. The English language constantly undergoes change. Acceptable conventions for dealing with gender-related language have undergone a great deal of change in the last few decades, and more change in this area will certainly will certainly come in the future. As the conventions of the English language change, new translations and revisions of existing translations will have to take this into account. This is especially important when the goal of the translation (like that of the NET Bible) is faithfulness to the original." (p.xiv)
When would changing from singular Hebrew to plural be a more accurate thing though?
"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 of the Challenge Of Bible Translation. Mark Strauss wrote this chapter called Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate)
Why would they have to change it to being plural 300 times?
So has the NASB, ESV and CSB ever done that?
Not as many times as Niv did!
So it's a matter of degree; not an entirely different kind of thing.
Its not that it is always wrong, but that the Niv choose to do it way too many times then needed, and mistranslated it at times by doing just that!
It's It's, not Its. It's chose, not choose. It's than, not then.
In your feeble estimation (that changes with the direction of the wind), you can make your decisions whether the CSB and NLT have used inclusive language correctly or not.
They have not, as in my estimation the Niv 1984 had it right in this regard, as do formal translations like the Nas and Nkjv!
Okay, cite the passages within the CSB and NLT where you think they went too far.
I do not own either of them right now!
That should never be your answer when you charge a translation of going to far with gender. Your answer is basically, "I don't know".
Let me help you out with the CSB
he apostles and the elders gathered to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them: “Brothers and sisters, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel message and believe.
While ἀδελφοί/adelphoi is used, context does not warrant this reading of "brothers and sisters". Unless you want to say that the elders and apostles were made up of both men and women. I expect this verse to change in the upcoming CSB update.
It should be noted that the NLT(2007) and NIV do not make this mistake.
By the standard I judge the NIV. This one mistake [and there are 2 or 3 others] does not make the CSB a "bad" translation. Overall the CSB is well done.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk