Inclusive Language

[franklinmonroe]

I just was doing a quick study of the term "children of the kingdom". The exact term is only found twice in the NT (Matthew 8:12, and 13:38, KJV) --

12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];​

The Greek words from the TR are identical in both verses: υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας.

That first Greek word is huios (Strong's #5207) which simply means "son". Very literal translations, such as the ASV, NASB, RSV, and Darby for examples, render the word "sons", and thus "sons of the kingdom".

It seems that the KJV made a inclusive language decision in these verses.

 

[Van]

Strong's lexicon says the word is sometimes used to refer to the descendents of someone, thus an inclusive term given the right context. the KJV translates G5207 about 49 times as children. Thus the many versions using "sons" might have missed the actual message. I also found "natural heirs" and "subjects" but the majority went with sons.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why did the 2011 niv decide to go so much into inclusive language renderings though, unless it was due to some perceived male bias in the prior version they did then?

 

[Rippon]

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.

A reminder.

 

[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 occasionaly cited the NASB, WEB, Darby and Weymouth translations when they used inclusive language.

Another reminder.

 

[Rippon]

Remember, the focus of this thread is to discuss the inclusive language issue with respect to the 84 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET Bible.

Way back on August 8th --post # 17 of yours, you stated that you were going to start doing comparisons with your 1977 NASB. Have you started? Or were you just spouting off because it's easier to merely assert things without actually doing any homework to support your position?

And why is the 1977 NASB your gold standard? Does it ever err? If say --the 84 NIV has some readings that are more inclusive than the 77 NASB, would you automatically conclude that the 84 NIV was wrong?

What do you mean by saying that they made too many decisions to go all inclusive? In a number of my 100 examples some of the four translations did not use inclusive language.

Instead of concluding that a greater usage of inclusive language is wrong --don't you think that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis with the contex(t) being taken into consideration?

Now Y1, this post of mine has six paragraphs. Don't just glibly dash off a two liner in need of a lot of editing that doesn't even begin to address what I have been saying here. Take your time and deal line-by-line with what I am saying --even if it takes you six separate posts to do so.

It's important not to forget things. Have clarity of thought. Address what I have said above in a straightforward fashion.

 

[Yeshua1]

Another reminder.

The Inclusive language renderings by themselves are not always the wrong rendering to support in translation, but the problem is that the Niv 2011 in its zeal went too far in this issue, as some of them were good to do, but others not so much, and should have stayed as the 1984 rendered them originally...

 

[Rippon]

Please R-E-A-D

I have taken the time to repost clear, and unambiguous things for you to remember. And what do you do? You ignore what I have said. You are like a wall. It is impossible for you to interact in any meaningful way. This happens with others you deal with on other forums as well. You need to step back and evaluate what we all have been telling you.