Featured Will you Supprt Inclusive Language 2020 Nasb?

I don't suppose that very many here will be the least bit interested in the person who is shortly to become Archbishop of York, and there's no reason why you should be. However, in Britain, it is quite a big deal. The AB of Y is No. 2 in the Church of England hierarchy and his pronouncements are very often covered in the newspapers and on the BBC.

The new man is called Stephen Cottrell, and he is a liberal and is in favour of celebrating same-sex 'marriages' and the blessings of transgender people. In one of his speeches he quoted from Genesis 2:18 as follows: 'It is not good for human beings to be alone,' and he went on to stress that hom**exuals in 'stable relationships' should be accorded all the benefits of the C of E.

I don't know what Bible version he was using, or if it was his own rendering, but once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings' in your Bible, where do you stop? It is a slippery slope that will lead us gross error and the denial of God's righteous commandments.

 

I saw this in December and put it my bookmarks for potential thread topics.

 

A well-reasoned article by D. A. Carson gets a zero response. None of you wants to have a meaningful interaction?

 

Of course in the context of which Cottrell spoke "human beings" or "people" is not warranted at all. However, when you make it a universal rule as you implied with "But once you have replaced 'man' with 'people' or 'human beings in your Bible, where do you stop?" That is untenable. Of course your preference not to use collective terms is your own choice. But it is not sound or reasonable. There are many places in the Bible when those terms are quite suitable and orthodox theology will not suffer a whit.

 

You will be at a total loss to document anything, but I will attempt to ask you to prove it by citing any evidence to back up our theory. Among other things your theory is rather nebulous. You say there is a subtle influence on some modern translations. But you acknowledge that none comes out clearly in support of hom _ _ _ _ _ _lity. Then you say bit by bit it will come. Of course it's just your thoughts on the matter, whether right or wrong. But it would be nice once in a blue moon to see some evidence when you make claims. I doubt that you read any Bible translations aside from your primary one. You said you have a CSB, but you are quite unfamiliar with it.

 

The point of my post which you posted in full is: document modern versions that are doing what you claimed. If you can't then you were just thinking out loud with no substance behind it.

 

Where is the evidence you'd like to submit in which some modern versions have been under this subtle influence? If you can't prove it, then onto your next pronouncement.

 

Your history of lies regarding the NIV offers no such proof. Again, you were thinking out loud with some idle thoughts
that cannot be backed up with anything specific from any modern Bible translation. Again, you have come up with a fat zero. Thanks for your contribution.

 

As usual you miss the point spectacularly. If there were no Bibles changing singulars into plurals and changing 'man' into 'human being' without the slightest Biblical authority, the Archbishop could not get away with his misquotation. But because you and your ilk (including, alas, Don Carson) have sold the pass, he can get away with them easily.

 

He misses the point. He has no right to change singulars into plurals -- end of story. Why not leave the Biblical text the way the Holy Spirit wrote it? Then there won't be any problem. Whether Don Carson and a thousand other scholars think Psalm 8 is a reference to Christ or not is beside the point (though John 5:39 might give him a hint). The point is that 'Son of Man' is singular, both in Psalm 8 and in Hebrews 2. So leave it that way!

 

MM, I have abridged Carson's article so that you can understand more fully what he is saying, especially regarding singulars and plurals.

 

The Archbishop was not citing any Bible translation; it was of his own derivation. Don't get it twisted as the cool kids say.

 

Do you want it? Some of us have things to do once in awhile that prevents responses as soon as you would like. Don't get all twisted.

As Martin writes,

A careful reading of what Martin wrote shows he did not say the Archbishop was citing a Bible translation but stating how the change in language makes it easier for people to think that he was.

 

Just to clarify what MM said.