Inclusive Language

[Rippon]

was there any valid reason to have the Niv 2005/2011 go so much into inclusive renderings though?

Y1, you specialize in asking questions that have been answered scores of times. And that is not just my personal experience with you. Lots of others on this and other forums would say the same thing.You either have amnesia, are lazy, contentious, stubborn or a combination of some or all of the aforementioned items.

 

[Rippon]

Acts 10:26
84, E, H : man
N : mere mortal

Ro. 3:28
84, H : man
E : one
N : person

Gal. 1:11
84 : man
E : man's
H, N : human

Gal. 6:1
84, H : someone
E : anyone
N : person
Weymouth : anybody

Col. 2:8
84,E,H, N, Weymouth :human tradition(s)

1 Tim. 2:5
84, E : men
H, N : humanity

James 2:5
84,E, H : man
N : human being

1 Peter 3:4
84 : inner self
E : hidden person
H : inside the heart
N : inner person of the heart
Weymouth : new nature within
WEB : hidden person of the heart
____________________________________________________
Non-exclusive language used for these eight items:

84 NIV : 3 out of 8 times.
ESV __ : 4 out of 8 times.
HCSB _ : 5 out of 8 times.
NET ___: 8 out of 8 times.
_____________________________________________________

Total so far for the amount of non-exclusive language used:

1984 NIV : 9 out of 83 items.
ESV_____: 35 out of 83 items.
HCSB ___: 60 out of 83 items.
NET : ___: 74 out of 83 times.

 

[Rippon]

Total so far for the amount of non-exclusive language used:

1984 NIV : 9 out of 83 items.
ESV_____: 35 out of 83 items.
HCSB ___: 60 out of 83 items.
NET : ___: 74 out of 83 times.

Correction:

In looking through my posts on this thread I noticed that I cited Matthew 12:12 three times!

Therefore a slight adjustment has been made.

1984 NIV : 9 out of 81 times.
ESV ____: 35 out of 81 times.
HCSB ___: 60 out of 81 times.
NET ____: 72 out of 81 times.

 

[Rippon]

Luke 2:14
84 : men
E : those
H, N : people

Luke 20:34
84 : people
E, H : sons
N : people
WEB : children

1 Peter 2:15
84 : men
E, H, N : people
Weymouth : persons

James 1:12
84, E : the man
H : A man
N : the one

James 1:20
84, H : man's anger
E : anger of man
N : human anger

Matt. 5:9
84, E, H : sons
N : children
WEB : children

Matt. 14:35
84, E, H : men
N : people
WEB : people

Acts 17:34
84, E, H : men
N : people
Weymouth : a few

Romans 8:14
84, E, H, N : sons
WEB : children

Romans 11:4
84, E, H : men
N : people
____________________________________________________
As far as non-exclusive language goes:

1984 NIV used it once out of ten times.
ESV used it twice out of ten times.
HCSB used it three times out of ten.
The NET used it nine out of ten times.

So, the grand tally so far is as follows:

1984 NIV : 10 out of 91.
ESV ____: 37 out of 91.
HCSB ___: 63 out of 91.
NET ____: 81 out of 91.

We're getting very close to a 100 item survey. So accurate percentages can be assigned shortly.

 

[Jerome]

Did you ever explain just how you're happening to choose the verses you do?

 

[Rippon]

Another correction has to be made,hopefully the last. I had used Romans 5:18 twice, in post #3 and #18.


So, the grand tally so far should be:

1984 NIV : 10 out of 90.
ESV ____: 37 out of 90.
HCSB ___: 62 out of 90.
NET ____: 80 out of 90.

 

[Rippon]

Did you ever explain just how you're happening to choose the verses you do?

With bad methodology it seems. I reworked the references from an old HCSB thread and some odds and ends of handwritten lists. But I deviated from my normal plan --going just book-by-book. I went to Bible Hub for the words to various versions.

 

[Rippon]

Points To Ponder

Alright then, this should be the last time for me to cite references. I want to close this part of the thread down. It has been kind of a headache.

Job 4:17
84, E, N : man
H : person

Micah 2:2
84, E, H : man
N : people

Mark 8:27
84, E, H, N : people
Weymouth : people

John 2:25
84, E, H, N : man

1 Cor. 8:3
84 : man
E, H : anyone
N : someone
WEB : anyone

Gal. 1:10
84 : men
E : man
H, N : people

Phil. 2:29
84 : men like him
E : such men
H : men like him
N : people like him

KJV and WEB : hold such

James 2:14
84 : one
E, H, N : someone

Darby : any one

James 5:17
84, E, H, : man
N : human being

1 Peter 2:19
84 : man
E : one
H : someone
N : someone

WEB : someone
Darby : one
______________________________________________________

Now, finally, the grand total of 100 references has been completed. It's still a small, yet representative sample. This is how it has gone down with respect to non-exclusive renderings in the these versions.

1984 NIV: 12%
ESV : 41%
HCSB : 68%
NET : 88%
_______________________________________________________

So those of you who want to take the time can go to some of those references and see for yourself. Just because the HCSB and NET use a good deal more inclusive language than the ESV should in no way indicate that the latter is more conservative and the others more liberal. And what about the 1984 NIV? Just because it has a low percentage of inclusive language --even a lot less than the ESV --should that merit any points?

And I hope you have noticed that I occasionaly cited the NASB, WEB, Darby and Weymouth translations when they used inclusive language.

 

[Yeshua1]

So based upon your research, the 1984 Niv a superior version to the 2005/2011 revisions, based upon how each treated the inclusive language debate?

 

[Rippon]

So based upon your research, the 1984 Niv a superior version to the 2005/2011 revisions, based upon how each treated the inclusive language debate?

Read post # 41 carefully.

This thread is about four primary translations: the 1984 NIV, The ESV, the HCSB and the NET Bible. I want you to come conclusions about inclusive language based upon my mini survey.

 

[Rippon]

Now, finally, the grand total of 100 references has been completed. It's still a small, yet representative sample. This is how it has gone down with respect to non-exclusive renderings in the these versions.

1984 NIV: 12%
ESV : 41%
HCSB : 68%
NET : 88%
_______________________________________________________

So those of you who want to take the time can go to some of those references and see for yourself. Just because the HCSB and NET use a good deal more inclusive language than the ESV should in no way indicate that the latter is more conservative and the others more liberal. And what about the 1984 NIV? Just because it has a low percentage of inclusive language --even a lot less than the ESV --should that merit any points?

And I hope you have noticed that I occasionally cited the NASB, WEB, Darby and Weymouth translations when they used inclusive language.

For your viewing pleasure.

 

[Rippon]

Does anyone out there want to draw any lines of demarcation? Where do you want to draw the line? Do you want versions that have used non-exclusive language less than 70% of the time, less than 50%? Or will reason prevail and context will determine that, and nothing else?

Things to ponder.

 

[Rippon]

Do you disagree with any of the renderings that I have listed from the ESV, HCSB and NET Bible? Of course it would be your job to find the texts and check the whole passage out for yourself. That's a little homework assignment you can handle. Right?

Has anyone done any "homework" on the matter?

 

[Rippon]

I hope no one holds the 84 NIV to be the standard that must not be tampered with regarding its "gender language." None of the other versions are liberal or "feminizing" the biblical text just because they use more inclusive language.

Your responses would be appreciated.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your responses would be appreciated.

You are saying that they was no agenda at all in trying to "correct" male bias within the texts as translated before?

 

[Rippon]

You are saying that they[sic] was no agenda at all in trying to "correct" male bias within the texts as translated before?

What do you mean by "as translated before" --I don't understand.

Answer the questions that you quoted. Do you think that any of the three other versions are liberal or feminizing the text just because they use more inclusive language than the 1984 NIV?

 

[Yeshua1]

What do you mean by "as translated before" --I don't understand.

Answer the questions that you quoted. Do you think that any of the three other versions are liberal or feminizing the text just because they use more inclusive language than the 1984 NIV?

No, not making it not the word of God to us in English, but not as accurate as it was in the priot form before the revision!

 

[Rippon]

No, not making it not the word of God to us in English, but not as accurate as it was in the priot[sic] form before the revision!

You have to work on your English y1. All those negatives : no, not, not. Please reword and clarify.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have to work on your English y1. All those negatives : no, not, not. Please reword and clarify.

The Niv is still a good translation, but the 1984 edition would be closer/more accurate to what the originals actual stated to us!

Would be like the 1984 erred on the more literal stance as a mediating position, while the 2011 took a more dynamic stance...

 

[Rippon]

The Niv is still a good translation, but the 1984 edition would be closer/more accurate to what the originals actual stated to us!

Would be like the 1984 erred on the more literal stance as a mediating position, while the 2011 took a more dynamic stance...

Try again. Read my post # 54 carefully and answer thoughtfully. Reading comprehension is very important y1.