-
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!
Humanoids
- Thread starter Rippon2
- Start date
Even tough it might mean actual brethren? or that we do knew that when it reads blessed is the man, includes women also?
As Rob said, the word 'brethren' was "an English gender-inclusive term with a masculine derivation." It did not refer to exclusively adult male believers.
Yes, and think that we still would understand brethren to refer to both males and females, would not need to retranslate it as such!
This is 2020. And with that keen vision, we know that the word 'brethren' used in the original sense,doesn't cut it any longer.
It actually still does, but the big problem is that we are getting too far into the evangelical feminism and trying to expunge masculine terminology of the scriptures, as that language was seen as now appropriate for today!
However you think we got to the place where were are presently with respect to the state of the English language --we are we are. You can't turn back the hands of time.
I have occasionally attended KJVO churches in America and South Korea (an American pastor). I have heard pastors say "Brethren, and you sistern too, because that's what it means..." These fundamentalist KJVO preachers know even that revered Bible version has misleading language at times, or at least expressions that could easily be misunderstood.
William Tyndale and Martin Luther would be in my corner regarding this. The language of Scripture should be in the common vernacular. It's not street slang; it's ordinary spoken and written English.
Should not though be lowered down to the standard of pretty much all masculinity gets removed, nor that we have to buy into how culture see gender roles!
Again, the views of Tyndale and Luther are reasonable guidelines for us today. You are obsessive regarding the use of inclusive language; and quite frankly, your understanding is skewed and absolutely false in this realm.
The Niv 1984 should have not bothered to change the masculine nouns and pronouns, as we know that blessed is the man refers to women also!
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about and you have forgotten all that has been presented to you in countless threads over the years here. Or have you intentionally 'forgotten'?
Think many would have preferred tgo just have kept the 1984 Niv as the pew and teaching version!
That is if they didn't want any improvements, when many translations twenty years or more of age are revised.
Only real time should revise would be if not textual evidence found, or new Greek text being used, but that would be few and far between!
I can tell that you wouldn't be in favor of revisions since you never revise your posts.
The English language, like all languages change over time. Even grammar needs to be reviewed to make things more understandable. Those against improvements need to improve.
Permit me to quote from the NET Bible regarding updates/revisions:
"Additional research, additional discoveries of new manuscripts, or archaeological discoveries that shed additional light on first century history and culture, also contribute to the need for revision. Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of users will also result in frequent revision of the notes accompanying the NET Bible. Thus the production of the NET Bible is not a one-time undertaking to be completed and put aside, but an ongoing project with planned improvement and revision.
Nevertheless, with the completion of the whole Bible, revisions to the translation itself will occur in five-year increments, allowing readers to memorize passages with at least a measure of durability." (Preface xv)
The English language, like all languages change over time. Even grammar needs to be reviewed to make things more understandable. Those against improvements need to improve.
Permit me to quote from the NET Bible regarding updates/revisions:
"Additional research, additional discoveries of new manuscripts, or archaeological discoveries that shed additional light on first century history and culture, also contribute to the need for revision. Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of users will also result in frequent revision of the notes accompanying the NET Bible. Thus the production of the NET Bible is not a one-time undertaking to be completed and put aside, but an ongoing project with planned improvement and revision.
Nevertheless, with the completion of the whole Bible, revisions to the translation itself will occur in five-year increments, allowing readers to memorize passages with at least a measure of durability." (Preface xv)
Dave G
Well-Known Member
With respect, I find that studying languages helps me to know how things have changed over the years.
But that does not mean that the way things were expressed 100 years ago ( or even 300 years ago ) is a mystery to modern people.
For example, just because Spanish has changed over the past 400 years, does not mean someone who speaks Spanish will be unable to understand the Spanish used in the 1602 Reina Valera.
Similarly, I am well-acquainted with Late Middle English, having read and studied from the AV for over 40 years now.
While there is a learning curve, I feel that changes in language only broaden one's knowledge, not diminish it.
I'm not a terribly educated man, but my reading of the AV has caused me to "shift into AV mode" when I read it, and then drop back out of it when using every day English in my writing.
The same with the Reina Valera 1602, and the Louis Segond 1874.
Yes languages change...
No, I don't agree with having to have new Bibles in our own language every 5 years or even every 50 years.
Last edited:
A fairly literate English speaker would understand most of the second Wycliffe Bible. That's more than half a millennium ago. The text would be puzzling in a number of places, but generally speaking one would be able to understand the message. However, it would be wise to have the language of a translation to be in the vernacular of the people. That's what John Purvey, Martin Luther, William Tyndale and others had been saying with vigor. It still applies in this age. It makes sense and it edifies the reader. The Lord would approve.