The Holman Christian Standard Version

[McCree79]

"Actually the first born son usually received the bulk of the inheritance in Jewish law"

Yep

"Ok, so why, if this term was not used to refer to women would women read it in the bible and think it referred to them? Would they not rather assume that such verses as Eph 1:5 were addressed to the men?"

The term is refering to women in the Matthew text I referred to. It is saying they have the inheritance rights of a "son" of God. One has to assume women were there based on context and the use of "ochlos" in verse 1. It could mean only "men", but that would be very unlikely and seems to rarely mean just mean. So context places women there. However to remove the legal sense of inheritance from verse 9 wouls be a mistake in my opinion.

Ephesians was written to a church. Again, women are part of the church,....same arugement that they are part of the "sons" that inherit from God(as Matt 5:9)

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

So, John wrote 'a male son' in Rev 12:5 did he - isn't that a little redundant? Are there other kinds of sons I wonder?

If you ask our society yes. There is about 20 types of gender now.

Just a few....
"Agender / genderless.Androgyne.Bigender.Genderqueer / Non-binary.Gender bender.Hijra.Pangender.Queer heterosexuality."

The real answer. "Huios" does not have to always men "male" but again in Rev 12 it does. It's use is similar to "ben" of the OT.

Would you also support the clouding of the "Son of Man" as a reference of diety by changing it to "child of man" in certain spots?


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Hmmmm, you might wish to read what I actually wrote and respond to that rather then a strawman!

I said υἱός is rightly translated as 'Children' in that verse, I never mentioned women priests!

Why should it be "children" if no woman of actual young child was a preist? Why should a group of men be rightly translated as "children" and not "sons"? Sons is the best choice. Especially since you agree they were all men.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

the point was that translations are based on 'texts' not individual manuscripts

Even then, individual manuscripts will sway a translator, since manuscripts are "weighted" differently within the same text type.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[reformed_baptist]

"Actually the first born son usually received the bulk of the inheritance in Jewish law"

Yep

"Ok, so why, if this term was not used to refer to women would women read it in the bible and think it referred to them? Would they not rather assume that such verses as Eph 1:5 were addressed to the men?"

The term is refering to women in the Matthew text I referred to. It is saying they have the inheritance rights of a "son" of God. One has to assume women were there based on context and the use of "ochlos" in verse 1. It could mean only "men", but that would be very unlikely and seems to rarely mean just mean. So context places women there. However to remove the legal sense of inheritance from verse 9 wouls be a mistake in my opinion.

Ephesians was written to a church. Again, women are part of the church,....same arugement that they are part of the "sons" that inherit from God(as Matt 5:9)

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

That doesn't answer the question I posed, it assumes that the women understood that Paul was speaking to them in that portion of the letter - something that seems unlikely if they would have automatically read it as 'males only'.

If you ask our society yes. There is about 20 types of gender now.

Just a few....
"Agender / genderless.Androgyne.Bigender.Genderqueer / Non-binary.Gender bender.Hijra.Pangender.Queer heterosexuality."

lol

The real answer. "Huios" does not have to always men "male" but again in Rev 12 it does. It's use is similar to "ben" of the OT.

I wonder if you looked up the text before writing that, did John say, 'a male son' or did he say 'a male child'? I would suggest common sense suggests the later.

Would you also support the clouding of the "Son of Man" as a reference of diety by changing it to "child of man" in certain spots?

Eh?

I am not seeking to cloud any issues!

I am simply seeking to point out that the issue of translation is not as simple as it might first appear - let's assume for a moment that you are correct in regards to women understanding Eph 1:5 as referring to them and being thrilled to learn that they have an inheritance in Christ (something that according to you they did not normally have in society) - now, bring such texts into our era where both male and female have the same inheritance rights is it not in keeping with Paul's sense to understand it as 'sons and daughters' after all I am fairly certain the preacher will explain that it means women too! Doesn't just save the preacher a minute and allow him to expound the text without wasting time on that basic point of language?

Actually I'm not defending inclusive language per se, rather I am just looking at the issues a little deeper because I don't think it is simple as many make out

Why should it be "children" if no woman of actual young child was a preist? Why should a group of men be rightly translated as "children" and not "sons"? Sons is the best choice. Especially since you agree they were all men.

The verse in question is:

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, (NKJ)

And I have to say I am really struggling to follow your logic here, are you suggesting this should be translated, 'whom they of the sons of Israel priced' - You have suggested that I am willing to cloud the name of 'the son of man' without warrant, yet you see to want to do a similar thing with the term 'children of Israel'

Take for example, Ex 1:7, is it only the sons of Israel that increased, or is his the whole nation (LXX υἱοὶ Ισραηλ)

Again, the point is that υἱός does not have a direct correlation to our English word son, it is Greek word that share some semantic overlap with the English term 'son' - by that I mean it is equivalent in meaning in certain contexts.

Even then, individual manuscripts will sway a translator, since manuscripts are "weighted" differently within the same text type.

Could you provide an example in a mainstream where a translator has departed from the base text he is using in favour on a particular manuscript - I am aware of many places where translators might translate based on a different 'text', eg UBS4 or USB5. or NA28, or the Rt or the majority text, but i'm not aware of any places in major bible versions that follow the 'texts' to follow a reading based on a single manuscript.

 

[McCree79]

That doesn't answer the question I posed, it assumes that the women understood that Paul was speaking to them in that portion of the letter - something that seems unlikely if they would have automatically read it as 'males only'.

Women would know that the "sons" recieved the inheritance based on adoption practice and inhertiance practice of their era.

I wonder if you looked up the text before writing that, did John say, 'a male son' or did he say 'a male child'? I would suggest common sense suggests the later.

Doesnt matter, it is obvioulsy a male in view.

Doesn't[IT] just save the preacher a minute and allow him to expound the text without wasting time on that basic point of language?

*** I inserted "it", let me know if you did not mean that....just trying to understand the question.

I believe the pastor should explain the significance of sexual worth equality. I find it powerful and it was counter cultural to that day.

Actually I'm not defending inclusive language per se, rather I am just looking at the issues a little deeper because I don't think it is simple as many make out

It's all good. I like discussing things like this anyway. I use the NIV11 and just believe the ESV is better in this regard. However the NIV11 is one of thr best out there. I don't want to come across as being down on the NIV. I can easily give examples of spots where I believe the NIV to be better than the ESV.

The verse in question is:

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, (NKJ)

And I have to say I am really struggling to follow your logic here, are you suggesting this should be translated, 'whom they of the sons of Israel priced' - You have suggested that I am willing to cloud the name of 'the son of man' without warrant, yet you see to want to do a similar thing with the term 'children of Israel'

Oh.....I see where we are missing each other here. I am comparing ESV rendering to a gender inclusive rendering. Yes, I like the ESV use of "sons" here better. We are using diiferent text...NJKV vs ESV....that is where we nissed each other.

Take for example, Ex 1:7, is it only the sons of Israel that increased, or is his the whole nation (LXX υἱοὶ Ισραηλ)

Could you provide an example in a mainstream where a translator has departed from the base text he is using in favour on a particular manuscript - I am aware of many places where translators might translate based on a different 'text', eg UBS4 or USB5. or NA28, or the Rt or the majority text, but i'm not aware of any places in major bible versions that follow the 'texts' to follow a reading based on a single manuscript.

ESV use of "Jesus" instead of "Lord" in Jude 5

I was referring to text type such as "Alexandrian" not such as the NA27. Regardless the abobe does show where a translation team went agaisnt the base Greek(NA27) they used.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[reformed_baptist]

Brother,

I think it is time to draw a line under this, as all I can do is pose the same questions again and I am not convinced the answers will be forthcoming - you seem to believe that women would just know that Paul was speaking about them when he uses a word that they knew did not refer to them - to me that makes no sense, but in the grand scheme things what does it matter

ESV use of "Jesus" instead of "Lord" in Jude 5

The is a known variant within the NA text (one of 5 possible readings in NA27).

[/quote]I was referring to text type such as "Alexandrian" not such as the NA27. Regardless the abobe does show where a translation team went agaisnt the base Greek(NA27) they used. [/quote]

Actually it doesn't, and it is very different to your original assertion

With all due respect brother there seems to be a great deal of confusion in your language when it comes to textual matters, there are manuscripts (autographs and apographs) there are textual tradition (eg Alexandrian) and there are texts, eg NA27 - to use these terms inaccurately just breads confusion - and that is what I am trying to clear up - I can't make sense of what you have written above - but again please have the last word if you wish

 

[McCree79]

The is a known variant within the NA text (one of 5 possible readings in NA27).

Yep, but it isn't in the base text. The variants come from different manuscripts as i said above.



[QUOTES]Actually it doesn't, and it is very different to your original assertion [/QUOTE] the post tou replied to said text type. It is what I asserted.

With all due respect brother there seems to be a great deal of confusion in your language when it comes to textual matters, there are manuscripts (autographs and apographs) there are textual tradition (eg Alexandrian) and there are texts, eg NA27 - to use these terms inaccurately just breads confusion - and that is what I am trying to clear up - I can't make sense of what you have written above - but again please have the last word if you wish

Nope, authgraphs are the orginals. Manuscripts refer to the hand written copies, which have the variants. I use text type(which seems more common) as you do textual tradition. Manuscripts and autographs are two different things.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

*post 104 is clear that i was talk about individual manuscripts within the text type

 

[reformed_baptist]

Nope, authgraphs are the orginals. Manuscripts refer to the hand written copies,

No, apographs are the copies of the autographs - manuscript is a generic term covering both referring to any document that is produced by hand rather then manically (or reproduced by automation - eg photocpied)

which have the variants.

Eh?

Some manuscripts do contain alternative readings, for example there are several hands that can be seen in Aleph adding corrections etc giving variant readings, others have alternate readings in 'the margin' (like our modern bibles) but I'm not sure that is what you are getting at!

Of course there can be no variants in the autographs (there is only one copy). It is potentially possible for there to be apographs with no variants as well (a perfect copy). A textual variant occurs with a copyist makes a mistake which is not spotted and that mistake enters into the stream of transmission. Specific groups of variants identify various textual traditions, for example there are some readings that are 'Alexandrian' and some that are 'Byzantine' (to keep this simple).

I use text type(which seems more common) as you do textual tradition.

OK - both are acceptable

Manuscripts and autographs are two different things.

That's like saying books and novels are two different things! On is a subset of the generic term.

 

[McCree79]

That's like saying books and novels are two different things! On is a subset of the generic term.

Got it



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Eh?

Some manuscripts do contain alternative readings, for example there are several hands that can be seen in Aleph adding corrections etc giving variant readings, others have alternate readings in 'the margin' (like our modern bibles) but I'm not sure that is what you are getting at!

Variants are in copies after the autographs. Even copies in the same text type have variants. The variants listed in the NA come from manuscripts. The transaltors well vary from the base text of NA at times and go with a variant. These manuscript influence the translators decision. Manuscripts and weighted differently and translators do look at what manuscript has what reading.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

* and this part of the conversation orginated from post 100, just so we keep ot straight. Individual manuscripts influnce translation. Since they are weighted differently. They influnce the underlying text. To seperate the individual from the collective is to ignore how we got the NA. Which I think we both know....you likely just wanted to pick on my use of "manuscripts"

 

[McCree79]

The verse in question is:

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, (NKJ)

Back to the proof text of "children" being the correct rendering here....

Why is it superior to the ESV:
"Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,"

Why is "children" correct when you acknowledge women were not priests? Why go gender inclusive when there is no women in the context?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

Just to be clear: The NIV renders Ephesians 1:5 as :"he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ..."

 

[McCree79]

Just to be clear: The NIV renders Ephesians 1:5 as :"he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ..."

....And they did a great job there. Superior rendering over the KJV, LEB and HCSB

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[reformed_baptist]

Back to the proof text of "children" being the correct rendering here....

Why is it superior to the ESV:
"Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,"

Why is "children" correct when you acknowledge women were not priests? Why go gender inclusive when there is no women in the context?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

The question of the gender of the priesthood is complete red herring in regards to this verse and it's translation. We all recognize that the term 'children of Israel' is a national identifier (like English or American is). Now, if you wish to go back and interest with the point I was making I will address those responses but I'm not wasting my time chasing down every strawman response made

 

[Yeshua1]

But "thwe inclusive language thing" is not a problem for many of you with respect to the ESV, HCSB, NET and NLT.

So says someone who never provides specifics.

Many have had problems with how much of it was in the new Niv, and NLT and other versions who had a lot more of that would be suspect also to many!

 

[McCree79]

The question of the gender of the priesthood is complete red herring in regards to this verse and it's translation. We all recognize that the term 'children of Israel' is a national identifier (like English or American is). Now, if you wish to go back and interest with the point I was making I will address those responses but I'm not wasting my time chasing down every strawman response made

The nation of Israel did not set the price. The preists did. "Sons" is superior rendering. This is not a strawman, you point was that "children" is intended here. What in the context would lead you to a inclusive rendering over "sons"? Context would make "sons" the betrer choice.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a difference between the amount and locations of "gender inclusive" in the ESV vs. NIV. Especially with the word "huioi". This word almost always includes a male meaning and is legal term in the adoption and INHERITANCE laws of first century Rome. To deny women to be called "sons of God" is to deny them the inheritance of God. The daughters of a father typical did not get the inheritance, but the sons. So to tell a woman in the 1st century that she was a "son" to God was to tell her she would get an inheritance from God. It is instance like this where I find the ESV more accurate then the new NIV. That being said, 90%(number is approximate based on my experience) of those agaisnt the NIV don't even go there

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

It seems that those into making more inclusive language renderings though are laboring under the false assumption that somehow the Bible is too "masculine" in nature, as if God really did not authorize male headship patterns?

 

[Yeshua1]

the point was that translations are based on 'texts' not individual manuscripts

True, as the original langauges source texts would be edits/compliations of the various manuscripts available!

 

[Rippon]

It seems that those into making more inclusive language renderings though are laboring under the false assumption that somehow the Bible is too "masculine" in nature, as if God really did not authorize male headship patterns?

You say inane things.