-
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!
Will you Supprt Inclusive Language 2020 Nasb?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
You're beating a dead horse. Aside from the NKJV, all of the modern English versions of the last thirty years have some measure of inclusive language. That is, the top twenty or so.
Are you getting ready to spout off some cursed misinformation about the new NASB too? As if you haven't caused enough damage to the NIV and CSB?
Before you start to be 'creative' do your own homework in the actual text of a given translation. read for yourself. Don't depend on 'experts' to lead you down a false path. You are not a dependable guide to the truth.
I am not against having ANY gender neutral language in the Bible, just against having as much as both the Niv 2011 and Csb chose to use!
Still no citations of any texts. Do you even have a conscience?
I've written most of this before, but that is because the question has come up before and there are new members of the forum who may not have read it.
My objections to Inclusive Language are twofold.
1. The use of the plural when the Bible uses the singular is changing the word of God at the behest of a bunch of feminists who are not interested in the Bible anyway. It also makes translations clumpy and disjointed. Here are two examples from the NIV 2011:
John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics).
Job 33:26. ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being’ Yuk! The great strength of the old NIV was that it read smoothly. To use ‘that person’ instead of ‘he’ makes the reading stilted and awkward.
2. Changing singulars into plurals can obscure references to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 1984. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honour
and put everything under his feet.”
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’
Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 2011. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honour
and put everything under their feet.”
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. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’
The point here is that the writer to the Hebrews, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, has taken a section of Psalm 8 and made it refer to the Lord Jesus. This is in line with John 5:39: ‘These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.’ We should always look to find Christ in the Old Testament. But the New NIV cannot make up its mind whether the ‘son of man’ is Christ or not. In one line it speaks of ‘him’ and in the next, of ‘them.’ The original Greek is singular throughout, and the new NIV, by mixing singulars and plurals, obscures the reference to our Lord.
I am aware that there are commentators who do not believe that these verses are a reference the the Lord Jesus. I disagree with them but do not deny their right to be mistaken. What I do deny is their right to obscure the word of God so as to prevent other people finding Christ in these verses.
My objections to Inclusive Language are twofold.
1. The use of the plural when the Bible uses the singular is changing the word of God at the behest of a bunch of feminists who are not interested in the Bible anyway. It also makes translations clumpy and disjointed. Here are two examples from the NIV 2011:
John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics).
Job 33:26. ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being’ Yuk! The great strength of the old NIV was that it read smoothly. To use ‘that person’ instead of ‘he’ makes the reading stilted and awkward.
2. Changing singulars into plurals can obscure references to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 1984. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the angels;
you crowned him with glory and honour
and put everything under his feet.”
In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’
Hebrews 2:6-9, NIV, 2011. ‘But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honour
and put everything under their feet.”
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. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.’
The point here is that the writer to the Hebrews, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, has taken a section of Psalm 8 and made it refer to the Lord Jesus. This is in line with John 5:39: ‘These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me.’ We should always look to find Christ in the Old Testament. But the New NIV cannot make up its mind whether the ‘son of man’ is Christ or not. In one line it speaks of ‘him’ and in the next, of ‘them.’ The original Greek is singular throughout, and the new NIV, by mixing singulars and plurals, obscures the reference to our Lord.
I am aware that there are commentators who do not believe that these verses are a reference the the Lord Jesus. I disagree with them but do not deny their right to be mistaken. What I do deny is their right to obscure the word of God so as to prevent other people finding Christ in these verses.
Hebrews 2:6-9 (NLT)
For in one place the Scriptures say, 'What are mere mortals that you should think about them, or a son of man that you should care for him? Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. 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. What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position 'a little lower than the angels'; and because he suffered death for us, he is now 'crowned with glory and honor.'
In opposition to MM, John MacArthur and D.A. Carson take a different stance. Remember when I said that 75% of the commentaries that D.A. Carson had believed that the Psalm 8 was not exclusively about Christ? Humanity was in view in verses 6-8 in Hebrews 2, but that verse 9 shows that the fulfilment is in Christ Jesus.
For in one place the Scriptures say, 'What are mere mortals that you should think about them, or a son of man that you should care for him? Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. 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. What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position 'a little lower than the angels'; and because he suffered death for us, he is now 'crowned with glory and honor.'
In opposition to MM, John MacArthur and D.A. Carson take a different stance. Remember when I said that 75% of the commentaries that D.A. Carson had believed that the Psalm 8 was not exclusively about Christ? Humanity was in view in verses 6-8 in Hebrews 2, but that verse 9 shows that the fulfilment is in Christ Jesus.
alexander284
Well-Known Member
Maybe they want to increase sales.
I am against gender neutral language period. Gender neutrality is a myth. It doesn't exist in a translation.
Maybe you are judging motives that are actually pure.
Maybe. I was just assuming that the gender language issue might not be popular for them, and was trying to guess their motives. Maybe they are pure.
I would conjecture that the new NASB (whatever it may be called) will not have as much inclusive language as the CSB or the NIV. Those two are about neck-to-neck in that department. The new NASB isn't going to be dramatically different when we see the final product. Of course, when the NKJV was released some felt it was "too extreme" for leaving out 'thee' 'thou' 'thy' 'thine,'and 'ye' etc.
Oh no!
The NKJV translators used the (originally) plural pronoun you instead of the singular thee ???
Nooooo, not the NKJV!
'Cause using the plural pronoun for singular is "CHANGING THE WORD OF GOD!!!"
Isn't it?
Oh no! Translations dare to have the term "brothers and sisters" in the text! Those feminists are behind all of this. I knew it. The next step will be that God will be referred to as a woman. My friends in our conspiracy make gigantic leaps of irrationality like this all the time. It's our prime hobby. I predict the end of the Christian Church in 12 years just like Greta said. Oh, wait a minute she's the Global Warming girl who said that. But we in our fanatical group can appropriate that line for ourselves. Yea, that's the ticket. That will work. Didn't that work for Al Mohler?
As usual, you deliberately miss the point. The point is not that this or that commentator may believe this or that about Psalm 8. The point is that the 'Gender-inclusive' people are changing the Scriptures (singulars to plurals) to prevent people from reading what they actually say and coming to their own conclusions.
Further more, Gender Inclusivity is playing into the hands of the 'Transgender' Fascists. It appears that God's ]preferred pronoun' is now 'they.'
Hebrews 2 and Psalm 8 has nothing to do with inclusive or exclusive language, singulars or plurals
I have absolutely no idea what the above means.
You have outlined here just why we should avoid gender inclusion renderings unless they is a legit reason to do such, as they do indeed tend to obscure Jesus in the OT, and to try to make the "masculine mindset" of the scriptures more PC correct!
The Holy Spirit Himself agrees with MM on this issue, despite what the good Drs hold with!
Bad choice, as the Niv 2011 has that market now cornered!