It seems that many times the gender rendering is NOT what the original intended though!
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Will you Supprt Inclusive Language 2020 Nasb?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Its an attempt to get ride of perceived "masculine bias" in the Bible, as many see no more distinctions between men and women in areas of roles and responsibilities, especially in the Church!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 and psalms has to do with the Holy Spirit intending them to be referring to Jesus Himself!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 are absolutely wrong , as usual. And your constant use of exclamation marks for just about anything you say does not add any more weight to your nonsense claims.Its an attempt to get ride of perceived "masculine bias" in the Bible, as many see no more distinctions between men and women in areas of roles and responsibilities, especially in the Church!
I have explained myself repeatedly on this subject. You have amnesia.Hebrews and psalms has to do with the Holy Spirit intending them to be referring to Jesus Himself!
You are wrong as can be. What's new?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!
I know your position, its just that the Holy Spirit disagrees with you on this!I have explained myself repeatedly on this subject. You have amnesia.
You must have messed the memo on Evangelical feminism trying to influence how we understanding the roles of men and women in scriptures!You are wrong as can be. What's new?
And you are stubborn, as see the Niv 2011 much the same fashion some in Kjvo see the Kjv!I have explained myself repeatedly on this subject. You have amnesia.
You're being blasphemous.I know your position, its just that the Holy Spirit disagrees with you on this!
The Holy Spirit inspired daniel to see Jesus as being the divine Son of man, correct?You're being blasphemous.
Your disordered mind is jumping all around. You were referencing Psalms and Hebrews earlier. And like usual you don't bother to give references.The Holy Spirit inspired daniel to see Jesus as being the divine Son of man, correct?
I hope you have figured out that you are not the Holy Spirit by now.
I never said that I was, but you have to accept that the Niv did a poor job in regards to disconnecting Jesus from Son of Man!Your disordered mind is jumping all around. You were referencing Psalms and Hebrews earlier. And like usual you don't bother to give references.
I hope you have figured out that you are not the Holy Spirit by now.
It did such a poor job of "disconnecting Jesus from the Son of Man" that it didn't do it at all.I never said that I was, but you have to accept that the Niv did a poor job in regards to disconnecting Jesus from Son of Man!
So they do see psalms as referring to Jesus Himself as THE Son of man?It did such a poor job of "disconnecting Jesus from the Son of Man" that it didn't do it at all.
Is it true though?Don't be lazy.
Martin, I was just looking at this yesterday. I agree that the change obscures the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 8:4-5. Hebrews 2:5-9 quotes Psalm 8:4-5 and shows its prophetic nature. Leaving “son of man” in Psalm 8 allows for a reference to human beings as well as the Lord, while using “human beings” obscures the reference to the Lord. I thought this even more curious when I noticed the footnote in Daniel 8:17: “The Hebrew phrase ben adam means human being. The phrase son of man is retained as a form of address here because of its possible association with ‘Son of Man’ in the New Testament.” Here they give a Messianic reason for retaining “son of man.” Though the note here gives the “form of address” reasoning, they also retain “son of man” in Daniel 7:13, where it is not a form of address. Altogether, I thought it interesting that they let the New Testament understanding enter into the translation decision in Daniel, but not in Psalm 8. Son of man is a correct translation of ben adam, even if one argues it can be something else.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.
Last edited:
In the following essay by D.A. Carson in his The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation he refers to the TNIV. The 2011 NIV had not yet been published. But the points he makes are still relevant.
"The charge is made that the TNIV obscures the quotation from Ps. 8:4, mistranslates three words by turning them into plurals, and loses the messianic plication of 'son of man' to Jesus Christ. I have probably said enough about the use of the plural. Whether the TNIV obscures the connection with Ps. 8:4, will depend a bit on how it translates which has not been published. The serious charge, in my view, is that this loses the messianic application to Jesus Christ. Yet here, too, the charge is less than fair. The expression 'son of man' in the Old Testament can have powerful messianic overtones, of course (see Daniel 7:13,14), but it is far from being invariable: about eighty times it is used as a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel, without any messianic overtone whatsoever. So whether the expression has messianic content or not must be argued, not merely asserted. In Psalm 8, the overwhelming majority of commentators see the expression as a gentilic, parallel to the Hebrew for 'man' in the preceding line. 9Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent --which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural.) In the context of the application of Psalm 8:4 to Jesus in Hebrews 2, one should at least recognize that the nature of the application to Jesus is disputed. Scanning my commentaries on Hebrews (I have about forty of them), over three-quarters of them do not think that 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title but simply as a gentilic, as in Psalm 8. If this exegesis is correct (and I shall argue elsewhere and at length that it is), Jesus is said to be 'son of man,' not in function the messianic force of that title in Daniel 7:13-14, but in function of his becoming a human being --which all sides recognize is one of the major themes of Hebrews 2. If one wishes to take the opposite tack --that 'son of man' here is a messianic title --there are competent interpreters who have taken that line. But it is not a matter of theological orthodoxy, since understanding the text one way does not mean that the translator (or the commentator) is denying the complementary truth but is merely asserting that the complementary truth is not in view here."
"The charge is made that the TNIV obscures the quotation from Ps. 8:4, mistranslates three words by turning them into plurals, and loses the messianic plication of 'son of man' to Jesus Christ. I have probably said enough about the use of the plural. Whether the TNIV obscures the connection with Ps. 8:4, will depend a bit on how it translates which has not been published. The serious charge, in my view, is that this loses the messianic application to Jesus Christ. Yet here, too, the charge is less than fair. The expression 'son of man' in the Old Testament can have powerful messianic overtones, of course (see Daniel 7:13,14), but it is far from being invariable: about eighty times it is used as a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel, without any messianic overtone whatsoever. So whether the expression has messianic content or not must be argued, not merely asserted. In Psalm 8, the overwhelming majority of commentators see the expression as a gentilic, parallel to the Hebrew for 'man' in the preceding line. 9Incidentally, gentilic nouns in Hebrew are often singular in form but plural in referent --which may also address the indignation over the shift to the plural.) In the context of the application of Psalm 8:4 to Jesus in Hebrews 2, one should at least recognize that the nature of the application to Jesus is disputed. Scanning my commentaries on Hebrews (I have about forty of them), over three-quarters of them do not think that 'son of man' here functions as a messianic title but simply as a gentilic, as in Psalm 8. If this exegesis is correct (and I shall argue elsewhere and at length that it is), Jesus is said to be 'son of man,' not in function the messianic force of that title in Daniel 7:13-14, but in function of his becoming a human being --which all sides recognize is one of the major themes of Hebrews 2. If one wishes to take the opposite tack --that 'son of man' here is a messianic title --there are competent interpreters who have taken that line. But it is not a matter of theological orthodoxy, since understanding the text one way does not mean that the translator (or the commentator) is denying the complementary truth but is merely asserting that the complementary truth is not in view here."
Continuing with D.A. Carson's article :
"One could even imagine a more subtle argument, one with which I would have some sympathy : It is possible to see in 'son of man' in Psalm 8:4 a gentilic, rightly preserved in Hebrews 2, and then wonder if, owing to the frequency of 'son of man' as a messianic title in the Synoptic Gospels, early Christian ears might have picked up an additional overtone, without reading a messianic interpretation into the entire passage. This is possible, though hard to prove. The possibility could be accommodated by a footnote cue after 'human beings' in the TNIV, the footnote itself reading "Or, 'son of man.' [which the TNIV did -Rippon2] But at the level of actual translation, it is difficult to find legitimate reasons for condemning the TNIV rendering in such absolutist terms."
"One could even imagine a more subtle argument, one with which I would have some sympathy : It is possible to see in 'son of man' in Psalm 8:4 a gentilic, rightly preserved in Hebrews 2, and then wonder if, owing to the frequency of 'son of man' as a messianic title in the Synoptic Gospels, early Christian ears might have picked up an additional overtone, without reading a messianic interpretation into the entire passage. This is possible, though hard to prove. The possibility could be accommodated by a footnote cue after 'human beings' in the TNIV, the footnote itself reading "Or, 'son of man.' [which the TNIV did -Rippon2] But at the level of actual translation, it is difficult to find legitimate reasons for condemning the TNIV rendering in such absolutist terms."
How can it be merely a "possible association", as the Lord Himself direct connected Himself to being spoken of by the prophet there!Martin, I was just looking at this yesterday. I agree that the change obscures the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 8:4-5. Hebrews 2:5-9 quotes Psalm 8:4-5 and shows its prophetic nature. Leaving “son of man” in Psalm 8 allows for a reference to human beings as well as the Lord, while using “human beings” obscures the reference to the Lord. I thought this even more curious when I noticed the footnote in Daniel 8:17: “The Hebrew phrase ben adam means human being. The phrase son of man is retained as a form of address here because of its possible association with ‘Son of Man’ in the New Testament.” Here they give a Messianic reason for retaining “son of man.” Though the note here gives the “form of address” reasoning, they also retain “son of man” in Daniel 7:13, where it is not a form of address. Altogether, I thought it interesting that they let the New Testament understanding enter into the translation decision in Daniel, but not in Psalm 8. Son of man is a correct translation of ben adam, even if one argues it can be something else.