NIrV

The problem with gender neutrality is that it's not. Yes, often masculine pronouns can include women, but that's a judgment call. This feminist-inspired generation is NOT one to be trusted with such decisions, IMO.

I have read parts of NIrV before standardizing my family on the KJV. IMO some parts of the NIrV work pretty well, but some of it is just ridiculous - like most of Paul's letters. His ideas do not come through well in very short sentences made up of one and two syllable words.

The narratives in the KJV are very easy to read, unlike most of the epistles. When my son is old enough I plan to start with him there.

 

"Gender neutral," "unisex," and "feminist" are all disparaging and demeaning, dismissive terms for "gender inclusive," "inclusive language," and "gender accurate." A gender-accurate translation is one "that seeks to avoid masculine terminology when the original author was referring to members of both sexes" (Mark L. Strauss), as for example, Romans 3:28 intends to be understood.

"Generic masculine" is the term used for when "he," "him," "his," "fathers," "brothers," "sons," and "men" mean women or girls. As well as men or boys. For example, "man is the only mammal who can choose either to breast-feed his young, or provide them with the milk of another species." Or, "animals go through relatively little pain during childbirth, but man has a much larger head-to-body ratio at birth, so he must also have a very wide pelvis to accommodate a wider birth canal--and nevertheless, there can be much more pain during the birthing process."

The KJV went overboard generically masculinizing words that in the original languages were less obviously gendered: it rendered "anyone," "someone," "a person," and no one" routinely as "any man," "a certain man," "a man," and "no man." It also translated phrases like "people of Israel" as "men of Israel." Many people have no problem with the upgrading of this terminology in newer translations. The KJV was occasionally gender accurate or gender inclusive, though, as when translating "he who" as "whosoever," and "sons" as "children." Where some people have a problem is when newer translations recognize that "brethren" included women in the audience, and thus render it as "brothers and sisters." But a general rule is that anthropos means "person" and anthropoi "people," whereas aner normally means "man."

The real problem comes with expressions like "Whoever will, let him take of the waters of life freely," or and so on. Changing to the singular they, "let them take..." is seen as going overboard in the other direction by many folks critiquing newer versions, even though that's the way those same people usually talk. You'll notice I do it all the time and I do so without thinking; it's perfectly natural and routine, not politically motivated or charged. In Webster's, the second half of the very first definition for "they" is as a generic second-person singular pronoun linked to plural verbs. Its use is hundreds and hundreds of years old, and predates Shakespeare; it occurs without conscious choice when someone seeks to include both men and women or is being indefinite about something where whether the person involved is a man or a woman makes no difference. "You know, I hate when someone tailgates me on the freeway--they're just asking for an accident, aren't they"

Now not necessarily you, Lorelei, but I'd like somebody to quote 10 verses from inclusive translations--let's stick with the NT--that they feel translates a phrase that applies to only men that these versions mistranslate as applying also to women.

[ September 24, 2003, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Taufgesinnter ]

 

I hate the ridiculously short editing window we have here! Please forgive the typos in my post above. I couldn't get to them in time.

 

Thank you for starting this thread! It's provided me the topic for my research paper this semester. (It's nice for a change to have a topic to write on that I'm actually interested in and excited about!)