Congratulations for finding two solecisms by me in six years of posting. You must be so proud. As I pointed out to you just a week ago, 'everyone' and 'anyone,' although they are singular nouns, almost always apply to more than one person and therefore it is (I suppose) just about permissible to use 'they'. However, looking at my posts above, it is a very ugly usage of the English language and I definitely need to stop doing it.
-
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!
They, Them, Their
- Thread starter RipponRedeaux
- Start date
The sort of stuff that I am objecting to in the NIV 2011 is well illustrated in Hebrews 2:6-9.
'What is mankind that you care for them......' Here a correct translation would be 'What is a man that you care for him.' The Greek is singular throughout.
'You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honour, and put everything under their feet. The words underlined are all singular. It should be 'Him,' 'Him' and His respectively. This is important because the writer is referring to Christ (see verse 9) yet the NIV's use of the plural makes this unclear.
'In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.' Again, the words underlined are all singular, all though they cannot refer to Mankind in general because not all things are subject to Mankind (e.g. disease, weather, death). No, the words refer to Christ as is made clear in the next sentence.
Now let's be clear. The Bible was not written by Martin Marprelate who is capable of making all sorts of errors and solecisms. It was written by the Holy Spirit, and when the Holy Spirit places something in the singular it is not for the translators of the NIV, NRSV or any other Bible version to decide that they know better than He.
'What is mankind that you care for them......' Here a correct translation would be 'What is a man that you care for him.' The Greek is singular throughout.
'You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honour, and put everything under their feet. The words underlined are all singular. It should be 'Him,' 'Him' and His respectively. This is important because the writer is referring to Christ (see verse 9) yet the NIV's use of the plural makes this unclear.
'In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.' Again, the words underlined are all singular, all though they cannot refer to Mankind in general because not all things are subject to Mankind (e.g. disease, weather, death). No, the words refer to Christ as is made clear in the next sentence.
Now let's be clear. The Bible was not written by Martin Marprelate who is capable of making all sorts of errors and solecisms. It was written by the Holy Spirit, and when the Holy Spirit places something in the singular it is not for the translators of the NIV, NRSV or any other Bible version to decide that they know better than He.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you conceded some ground as I've done.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
In verses 6-8 the writer is referring to humanity, just as David did throughout Psalm 8. I noted that you said that in Hebrews 2:9 is where the writer is referring to Christ. That's right. While verses 6,7 and 8 refer to humanity. There is a plain break.
Verse 6 : "What is humanity that you remember them? Children of Adam that you care for them? (adapted from EXB)
Verse 7 : Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. (NLT)
Verse 8 : You gave them authority over all things." Now when it says "all things," it means nothing is left out. But we have not yet seen all things put under their authority, (NLT)
Verse nine is clear. Where you thought that it "cannot refer to mankind in general because not all things are subject to Mankind." But verse 8 clearly says "But we have not yet seen all things put under their authority."
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Another quote by Scott :
"The word they is being used as a pronoun of the common gender every day by millions of persons who are not particular about their language, and every other day by several thousands who are particular."
All the quotes are from The Current, Jan. 17, 1885, pp.43,44.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
"There is nothing awkward or ungrammatical in this, so far as the construction of English is concerned. It is ungrammatical when measured by the Latin method --- but what has Latin grammar to do with the English tongue?"
Advocating the use of the singular they.
The New Pronoun, Atlanta Constitution, Feb. 25, 1885, p.4.
Advocating the use of the singular they.
The New Pronoun, Atlanta Constitution, Feb. 25, 1885, p.4.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
Your point is well taken. I will simply say, "I don't have to like it!"
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
"Recently, a Christian told me they are not my friend because of some issues." (Salty : Nov. 1, 2021)
An alternative :
Recently, a fellow Christian told me we could not be friends because of some issues."
An alternative :
Recently, a fellow Christian told me we could not be friends because of some issues."
I agree. It is ugly, ungrammatical and unnecessary. It panders to the Gender-neutral brigade and should be resisted, regardless of the linguistic Vogons who say, "Resistance is futile.".Your point is well taken. I will simply say, "I don't have to like it!"
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
I had to go to great lengths to find a meaning for such a strange word. I finally found it in the Collins Dictionary. "Vogans are aliens who entire way of life circle around bureaucracy."
I'm certainly not a fan of red tape. So that meaning can't be applied to me. And what an example of poor English! It would be better expressed as "Vogans are aliens whose entire way of life circles around bureaucracy."
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
As Fred N. Scott said way back when "It is ungrammatical when measured by the Latin method."
'Vogon' is a literary allusion. I suggest you read the early chapters of The Hitch-hikers Guide to the galaxy. by Douglas Adams. The watchword of the Vogons was 'Resistance is Futile.'
And it is 'Vogons,' not 'Vogans' nor indeed, 'Vegans.'
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
You are the Vogon, not me. You are the one who wants everyone to march in lockstep to fuddy duddy 'rules' of the more recent past rather than what has been the norm for hundreds of years. You are the bespectacled schoolmarm who gets fussy over what is irrelevant.
If you mean the basic rules of the English language such as singulars and plurals, then I plead guilty as charged. Bring back the schoolmarm, I say, bespectacled or otherwise.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
I want to know how much of a stickler you are. Do you think it's wrong to split an infinitive? Is it befouling the language to end a sentence with a preposition? Do you draw a distinction between the words 'shall' and 'will' in your writing?
I want to see how consistent you are. I want to know where you draw your lines in the sand.
I want to see how consistent you are. I want to know where you draw your lines in the sand.
You really don't get it at all, do you?
Have you read anything by me concerning split infinitives? Sentences ending with a preposition (oops! I've just done it!)? Shalls and wills? No? Well mind your own business then.
My objections to the gratuitous use of the plural and the quite unnecessary avoidance of the word 'he' are threefold:
1. That it can obscure a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. If we understand that the whole Bible is about the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:27; John 5:39-40) then we need to be extremely careful about this.
2. If the Holy Spirit wrote in the singular, we do not have the right to decide that He was wrong.
3. You have previously agreed with me that these things have led to stilted and awkward English in your favourite Bible version.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Mine my own business?! I had no idea that you would take offence when I asked you about split infinitives, prepositions, and the distinctions between shall and will. Touchy, touchy. You are so sensitive.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Your concern is completely unwarranted. If you are going to use Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2 --that's a dead-end street. I want examples from the text of the NIV where where you feel Jesus has been violated.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
There are instances in which they, their and them are used awkwardly in the NIV. I have acknowledged that. But it is not across the board.
1 Corinthians 7:17
"Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them." (NIV)
Is that rendering problematic for you? In conversation you probably used that form of words as do most native English speakers. And they've been doing it for centuries.
Or perhaps you'd prefer the NLT wording :
"Each of you should continue to live in whatever situation the Lord has placed you, and remain as you were when God first called you."
Do you see and deficiency in the above? I don't.
How about the CEB?
"Nevertheless, each person should live the kind of life that the Lord assigned when he called each one. This is what I teach in all the churches."
I don't find the English above to be poor.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Matthew 16:24
NIV
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."
I have a problem with the above. But the way in which I would solve it would be to use a currently non-standard word. And that word is theirself. So I would substitute 'themselves; with theirself. I know, it's controversial. So is theirselves.
NLT
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me."
Any problems with that wording?
CEB
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me."
The only problem that one may have is that the CEB says "All who want to come after me" instead of saying "Whoever wants to be my disciple" or even "If any of you wants to be my follower."
NIV
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."
I have a problem with the above. But the way in which I would solve it would be to use a currently non-standard word. And that word is theirself. So I would substitute 'themselves; with theirself. I know, it's controversial. So is theirselves.
NLT
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me."
Any problems with that wording?
CEB
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me."
The only problem that one may have is that the CEB says "All who want to come after me" instead of saying "Whoever wants to be my disciple" or even "If any of you wants to be my follower."